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.
o I just finished reading this week's letters ("The World Needs Warriors", "Heroes Exist in Every Age"), and refreshed myself on the editorial about heroism ("The Return of the Guilt").
Some people are right and some people are more right but the point that I think is worth thinking about is this:
It's not so much heroism that is of far lower key the last century or so. Individuals faced with any obstacle that looks too big for them and passes over it can be seen as having heroism/courage. There are plenty of soldiers on streets that aren't in cushy (by comparison—a bunker is the last thing that is cushy) bunkers sending missiles out. That's one small point ... plenty of police officers on the streets taking down god-knows-how-many horrible human beings at risk to themselves ... countless volunteers making
sure that homeless shelters and soup kitchens are kept warm and stocked .. they are all heroes. But this is, I think, not what people are really lamenting.
I think people are really missing adventure.
I know I am.
Adventure, on an Indiana Jones level, or pirate adventure level, or Han Solo level, just doesn't exist in most of the last 100 years. There are no more "redskins" to tame (thankfully, as that period never should have happened that way), no more banditos, cattle rustlers, lost artifacts of mystic origin and unspeakable power; no authorities unwilling to believe our little green man stories so we have to fight them ourselves ... nothing that is, at the same time, larger than ourselves and solvable only by us as individuals. There are no spectacular fights or chases or life threatening puzzles to figure out.
And this is why I read sci-fi. All these things still exist in sci-fi, or SF, as some prefer. The adventures of sci-fi or SF characters are usually very personal, and while large in scale, and scope, small in focus. Adventures had by people who aren't soldiers, crusaders, policemen, firemen (not to take away from those professions) but adventure, personally. I'm not sure I'm describing my ideas as clearly as I could, but the evil in the world that we can confront directly is less than exciting. It's cruel and heartbreaking, but it's not exciting.
It's also, therefore, a matter of scale. I could rejoin the army (I have three years left before they tell me no) and head out to the mid-east and start exchanging rounds. I could go back to Korea and stare down the "yellow reds" again, all the while being part of a large scale operation—but it would be frightening, not likely exciting. The opportunities for an adventure that ended at the end and not in just another operation would be slim.
Some people are right to feel guilty about not contributing to the betterment of the world. But to feel guilty because you're not being a hero? Heroes don't care if they're heroes. Most people feel disappointed that there's no adventure.
Adrian J. Hunter
josephusz(at)rocketmail.com
disagree with Sumaiya Hashmi's view ("Yesterday's Wars Needed More Courage") that the deeds "done by the heroes of the Lord of the Rings (and even the lesser characters) are deemed
unmatchable in this world." First off, the whole Lord of the Rings saga can be taken as an allegory, so the specifics are not the issue but their results are. Change the setting of the tale—but keep its intent—and the results would be the same.
Had Tolkien written his tale in the modern age, or had it been set in a science-fiction universe, then you'd simply have replaced orcs with bug-eyed monsters and swords with blasters. Instead of catapults hurling huge stones at the walls it would be missile batteries and artillery pieces doing the work. Now, on its own this would not have spurred me to write this response. What tipped things over though was Mr. Hashmi's view that "not as much valiance is in the hearts of today's heroes as there was in yesterday's. For now, there isn't as much at risk. You can stand very far from the enemy and still attack without much danger."
This is an all to often repeated myth and one which shows Mr. Hashmi's little knowledge of how much things have not changed. As I write this today, more of our day's heroes have paid the ultimate price for their valiance in Iraq. To date, they join over 500 other heroes who have died there as well. The war there for them is anything but "far from the enemy" and nor can they "still attack without much danger."
Today's war is still an "up close and personal" war that requires such valiance in the hearts of our troops that, as it is real and not just fiction, dwarfs the valiant heroics as depicted in the Lord of the Rings saga. This takes nothing away from that awesome tale and I do agree with Mr. Hashmi's that the editorial, "The Return of the Guilt," hit this issue squarely.
But, please, do not think that heroism and valiance exist only on the screen, in the pages of books, or are things of a fictional bygone age. The power of such tales as the Lord of the Rings saga is that it reminds us how full of wonder, how full of magic and how full of heroism and valiance the real world actually is.
Madoc Pope
madoc(at)madoc.us
never write these types of emails, but I wanted to comment on [Scott Edelman's] review ("The Return of the Guilt,") of Return of the King, which I found on [Science Fiction Weekly].
I felt the same way when I saw these films—in fact, the second one made me quite depressed as I looked back on my life. That's when I decided I needed to do something. I traveled to Middle-earth (New Zealand) and began to think about change. I thought if I was in Middle-earth it would help, but instead it made me realize what I was missing even more than before. When I watched the third [film], I was hoping it would give me the answers I was looking for, instead it raised many more, and Frodo's journey did not end the way I would have liked. (I did not read the books, yet.) I guess I was hoping for the typical movie ending where everyone was happy and life was back to normal, but things don't work out the way it seems, even in real life.
Anyway, I am not really sure why I am sending this email, I guess I was thrilled to know that someone else got out of it what I did, and hope that there is more of us out there who decide to make a difference.
OK, going back to Internet lurker mode...
Brandy Schaefer
demonbuttercup(at)msn.com
n the world of science-fiction fandom, I am somewhat of a minority in that I do not hold the stereotypical "status quo" liberal view on things. I would describe myself as a conservative libertarian in most aspects. When it comes to what most people think of as "diversity," I'd offer another angle that I haven't seen yet here ("Diversity Must Be Reimagined", "'50s Stereotypes Just Won't Wash", "Letters Can Fix the Future", "Battlestar Continues 'The Kiss'"). To me, diversity isn't a black captain, an Asian pilot, a gay security officer ... it's those groups (and more) with diversity of opinion. The black captain who believes in taking it to the enemy. The Asian pilot who is a pacifist. The gay security officer who believes it is his sovereign right to bear arms. These characters could be all black. They could be all white. They could all be gay, but the diversity of opinion is what matters.
At times, when I watch Star Trek: The Next Generation or Deep Space Nine, I get this eerie feeling from how all the humans on the shows think the exact same. Those who don't think in "Federation Standard" are shunned and seen as Neanderthals (The Maquis, Ferengi, etc.). Where is the diversity of thought and opinion? Of course, I'm not picking on Trek and I'm not saying this is a unilateral phenomenon in Trek or in sci-fi in general. But, it is something that is a lot more common than not.
And there is something to be said for intentionally casting racially diverse crews in that the practice is racism in itself. "Well, we need a token Hispanic for the science officer..." Let's all work together to make the world of sci-fi truly diverse by promoting characters with differing mindsets and beliefs. Only then can we be truly "colorblind."
Tim Garrison
obsidiantailor(at)cox-internet.com
asha's review of Titan was excellent. [It] told me everything that I, as a reader, would like to know—in particular, what to anticipate happily and what to brace myself for. Before my next cruise through Amazon or Borders, I'll no doubt come here first to save myself the time spent wading through a book that wasn't what I had hoped.
[Science Fiction Weekly] is also proving itself handy for the basis of, "Hey, have you read...?" discussions when, "Hey, I haven't."
Thanks, all! Keep it up!
Alexandra Queen
editor(at)filthypikers.com
ll new series take time to establish themselves. With so many viewing options, it takes even longer for viewers to get around to trying some new shows. It also takes longer for word of mouth to spread. Network executives, on there hand, have very little patience when new shows hit
the market. If they don't get stellar ratings in the first two to three weeks, they either get yanked or jerked around in different days and timeslots until even the viewers who want to watch can't even find it.
Such is the case with Firefly. I hope the execs who canceled it are paying attention to the ongoing letters and the great DVD sales (the box set is currently #16 on Amazon). Some on the BBoards have said that the Fox execs who canned it would never admit to making a mistake and therefore all the fan support is meaningless (sans Joss [Whedon's] plans for a movie).
I'd like to mention one thing to those execs that might spark some sensibility in their tiny brains: The X-Files.
Yep, another show that Fox thought was going to be a monster looser, and its lead-in, The Adventures of Briscoe County Jr., would be the hit they were looking for. Well, we all know how that turned out.
I suggest each of the Fox execs who gave Firefly its cancellation get their hands on this box set and watch it, as I have, straight through in the proper order. I hope they'll see what I did ... a TV show that was canceled before its time.
When I first viewed Firefly on broadcast TV, I wasn't taken much by the non-metaphorical "space western." The locations, the language, even the stories, just seemed so wrong for something labelled "science fiction." But it quickly grew on me, and I really started to relate to the characters and their situation. Now, having watched it all over again, I can tell you, it is truly brilliant and I'm aching for more. Why is this hit material?
1. Real people. The crew of Serenity are real people. They aren't aliens, mutants, geniuses or superheros. They're working people who just happen to work in space. They've got problems. They're far from perfect. They don't always get along. But they're real and their
interactions are real, so much, that you care about them.
2. Plausible. The show takes place in a time and universe that is plausible in our future. Wars have been fought. Technology isn't super advanced (no replicators, transporters, photon torpedoes or phasers). It could just have easily been a ship at sea, although Serenity is one beauty of a ship.
3. We are the enemy. They don't need aliens and phenomena to be the bad guys. It shows that humans are, and probably always will be, our own worst enemies. It also delves into our humanity in that life is shades of gray, not always black and white.
4. It's very funny. Even in dire situations, there is humor. And it is found in a way, using the characters unique personalities, that had me laughing out loud over and over again.
Like Whedon's character Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly deserves to be resurrected, damn the egos and pride of Fox execs. They might just get seven or eight years out of it. These first 13 episodes are just the beginning of a great journey. Let Serenity fly again.
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
ince the departure of Robert Hewitt Wolfe, [Andromeda] has been in an ever-descending spiral of inanity and senselessness. Some episodes are just gibberish, making no sense what-so-ever.
The SCI FI Channel picks this [show] up but cancels fan-favorite Farscape? SCI FI passes on Firefly but picks up the pond-scum that is Andromeda? Still no word on a
commitment to make the new Battlestar Galactica mini into a weekly series but cash has
already been spent on the train-wreck that is Andromeda?
I remember when Farscape was canned, the Net said they wanted to get away from "spaceship based" sci-fi yet now they pick up the absolute worst of the lot? I'd rather watch the first season Babylon 5 episode "TKO" five times over before another episode of Andromeda.
SCI FI channel: You've been robbed.
Ian Kennedy
theman(at)funkbasealpha.com
eard the good news? ABC is going to have a series based on Stephen King called Kingdom Hospital.
Heard the bad news? The show's going to be on Wednesdays at 9 p.m.! Could they have picked a worse time? (OK, Wednesdays at 8pm.) I already watch Angel and tape Jake 2.0.
Given how ABC is touchier about ratings than The WB or UPN (remember Veritas and Miracles?), you'd think they'd try and put the series somewhere where it might succeed. If ABC had put in an uncontested (for sci-fi) timeslot, I would check it out, but under the circumstances, sorry ABC ...
And I resent that they might siphon off viewers from Angel and Jake, both deserving, but struggling, shows. Wednesday night was already a genre pile-up, but this is getting ridiculous.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
just discovered the Sound Space page on the Science Fiction Weekly site.
Thank you for the great review of the Intergalactic Touring Band reissue on CD. I had been waiting for a CD of this recording for years, and was thrilled when it finally appeared.
I agree almost 100 percent with your review; it's really a well-done and fun work. Unfortunately, it was and has been ignored, and both unfairly and sadly dismissed by the "prog" fans as "not proggy enough." It was also overlooked when disco and especially punk took over around the time of its release. I personally think it holds up well and has a great degree of charm. And as you wrote, it is "complex, clever and suprisingly cohesive." Exactly!
Sorry for the rambling, but it was a thrill discovering your excellent review!
Craig Kimber
Tiersian(at)aol.com
fter having received it nearly two weeks ago, I finally forced room into my schedule to watch all 22 episodes of the Babylon 5 season four six-disc set. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] As expected, I enjoyed the marathon viewing immensely. Personal taste colors my dislike of Straczynski's ending of the Shadow War. (I thought it was a cop-out, a cheat and a con, a plastic plot unlikely in the extreme requiring great efforts, bordering on the impossible, to suspend disbelief: a cop-out because it ended horrific conflict so easily and with such little cost, a cheat because for three years we were provided sharply defined visions of black hat vs. white hat, to be thrown away in the fourth for some new age, '90s sensibilities as transitory as necklines without so much as a single episode of preparation prior to season four, and a plastic plot because I find it hard to believe that advanced societies with the kind of sophistication to develop the genetic code for telepaths in several different races would be so shallow as the Vorlons, ditto for the Shadows), nevertheless the rest of that season redeemed all; how Delenn restores Minbar to wholeness, how Sheridan whips up support among the non-aligned worlds for a kind of international cop force, and then how, toward the last eight or so episodes, he centers his sights on removing the manifest evil that is Clark from the Earth Alliance, not to mention the sub-plot of Garibaldi's transfiguration into Judas, and then his later redemption and rehabilitation. Knowing that I would face disappointment, I still purchased the set, and I still watched them all, and I still came away more pleased than displeased.
Technically, at least in the set that I purchased, I found many flaws, including corrupt frames, abrupt break-continue sequences in the video, less-than-perfect resolution in some segments, and sound reduplication that made some key utterances nearly inaudible. Additional material on disc six was minimal, though the mini-documentary on Christopher Franke was a nice touch. I once boasted to a co-worker that I could be sold on a series based on the accompanying music alone; Christopher Franke's fruit is one reason why I was willing to make such an airy statement.
Complaints about the Shadow War's end notwithstanding, I was saddened by that attachment of a gag reel to the additional material. I willingly admit to some hopeful naivete when it comes to this subject, but to find out that Mira Furlan, Richard Biggs, Claudia Christian and even Jerry Doyle freely use language that would seem comfortable around a stevedore's lounge was disappointing. I should not have let myself feel such sadness, after all the explosion of DVDs with gag reels, all of which contain profane language seemingly as a staple, should have disabused me of such thinking. Nevertheless, it did cause me to wonder: Is there anyone in show business who knows how to engage in polite conversation?
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell(at)walsworth.com
Back to the top.
