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 response to Barbara Goldstein's letter of last week ("Smallville Poll Poses Problem"):
I agree with her that Smallville's producers have, mostly, done a good job of updating the Superman mythos for 2004 audiences. But I also understand her dilemma over the way those same producers have teased us with what might happen between Clark and Lana in contrast with what readers of the comic book have known for decades—they don't get together.
While I love the interplay between Tom Welling and Kristen Kruek, I'm one of those who firmly believes they should not get together. Goldstein mentioned that, if they were to get together, she would end up knowing his secret. Well, I seem to remember that there has been at least one version of the modern Superman storytelling, perhaps going back to the 1980s on up, where Lana is shown knowing Clark is Superman. That ends up being exactly the reason why she never allowed herself to get close to him (as opposed to Clark not letting her get close). It's been ages since I read those particular comic book issues, but I seem to remember having the impression that Lana didn't let on that she knew Clark's secret for years.
Readers of the current crop of Superman comics know that Lex Luthor has been President of the U.S. and that Pete Ross is his vice-president. And that Lana is Pete's wife and has been for years. In fact, in a recent issue sometime in the last year, Lex revealed that he has known that Clark is Superman ... whether that was from early on or because Pete had a (legal?) obligation to reveal that information to President Luthor is unclear to me at the moment. I have a feeling Smallville's producers are quite keen to what has been going on in the comics the last few years and have developed the beginnings of the current "mythos" surrounding their characters.
The producers revealed some time ago that Chloe is Lois Lane's (previously unknown) cousin. And we know from the comics that Pete and Lana get together. Would it be too far-fetched to believe that Lois enters the picture precisely because of Chloe? While I like the actress and character, I have a feeling Chloe will be killed off at some point down the line (Lionel Luthor?) and Lois will come on board investigating her cousin's demise, setting off the beginning of Lois vs. Clark journalism reminiscent of early days at The Daily Planet. In the meantime, the current Adam scenario aside, Lana will eventually turn to Pete for the comfort Clark can't seem to provide her—or that she denies herself once she learns that Clark has been hiding the biggest secret of all from her all this time.
In any event, the fun of Smallville is watching how Clark grows into not only his Superman powers, but into the man that is Clark Kent. While Superman may be an alien adopted by Earth parents—seemingly making his "real" identity Kal-El—at the core he is Clark Kent. His becoming a hero rather than a dictator is the triumph of "nurture vs. nature."
Kryptonian by virtue of DNA, he has a human soul, thanks to Jonathan and Martha Kent.
Martin Cahn
demensions(at)msn.com
n addition to what Timothy Morgan ("Babylon 5 Defense Grid Is On") had to say concerning Babylon 5's Shadow War, there are even deeper themes, which in recent times have become all the more relevant to what we're told is happening in the real world.
On one level, the Shadows and Vorlons were a Cold War metaphor, but boiling away under the surface of that, were more important lessons. Debates raged as to the true nature of the Vorlons and Shadows, prompted in part by J. Michael Straczynski's statement that he expected a percentage of viewers to agree with the Shadows, once their agenda was revealed. People insisted that Kosh—who had been seen in his angelic form—must be good. This, of course, was a trap which relied on the largely Judeo-Christian cultural conditioning in which the majority of Western TV audience are immersed.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
As things turned out, both of the B5 superpowers were working entirely for their own aims. Neither truly cared about those who they perceived as lesser beings. Both Vorlons and Shadows had long ago ceased to evolve, and suffered from a supreme arrogance. Timothy posed the question, why would a good race destroy a whole race just for one person? It is a question which has a bitter parallel today, in the real world. Just look at what's happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. Meanwhile, on the home front, is the office of Homeland Security and Patriot Act really that different from the Nightwatch?
Perhaps, the ultimate lesson we must learn from the Shadow War is that all wars are created and promoted by evil people who do not, personally risk their lives. We are all being used in deadly games, and only when we open our eyes, as Sheridan forced his allies to do, will we learn the truth. That being, the average American, Arab, Britain, Israeli, Korean and all other peoples on this island Earth need just one word to stop our leaders wasting our lives trying to impose their ideologies. That word is a resounding NO.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazilREMOVETHIS(at)freeuk.com
ow nice that you have reminded us of this seminal novel [The Man Who Folded Himself], but how odd that you chose not to discuss its most basic subtext: homosexuality. Massively oversimplifying, this novel brings into focus that which has actually been inherent in all parallel world/time travel stories: that while traditional "space" stories are inherently heterosexual, with their search for "someone who thinks like a man but is not a man" (John W. Campbell's classic line, uttered completely unaware that he was defining a woman), time travel stories are the search for someone "just like me."
There is, of course, "nothing wrong with that." There is, indeed, a great deal right with that. But it explains, as nothing else can, why such stories (when they are more than a chance to replay history as an academic exercise) so stay with us.
Alan S. Kornheiser
akornhis(at)optonline.net
notice with interest that your Classic Sci-Fi book choice is David Gerrold's wonderful The Man Who Folded Himself, first published in 1973. But surely it's worth mentioning that a handsome 30th-anniversary edition, with revised and updated text, a candid afterword by David, and an introduction by yours truly, was published last year by Benbella Books.
Robert J. Sawyer
sawyer(at)sfwriter.com
have to disagree with Kevin Ahearn's contention ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve") that anger is what makes science fiction great. The greatest science-fiction writers of the 20th century were Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. Perhaps there were demons in their private lives, but their fiction is remarkably affable and thoughtful.
The greatest science-fiction "phenomena" of the 20th century were Star Trek and Star Wars. Star Trek was about optimism and Star Wars teaches that Hate is Wrong.
Jules Verne, angry? I think not. Science fiction is still about that ephemeral thing called "sense of wonder." If modern science fiction is more about Anger than it is about Sense of Wonder, maybe that's because modern science fiction isn't really science fiction anymore.
Joe Schembrie
joeschem(at)hotmail.com
'd say Kevin Ahearn ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve") is a little ... uh ... angry.
(Oh, c'mon. Someone had to say it.)
Of course, I totally disagree with him. Great science fiction takes vision, imagination and a strong command of the written word so that their ideas are clear and engrossing.
Anyone can be angry about something and as a reaction, write. It doesn't make it great.
J. Bicking
bickj(at)hydrosoft.net
amie Lila Murray's letter ("The Future of X-Files Is Uncertain") laments the (now seemingly permanent) end of the X-Files. But from my perspective, the series' end is not a bad thing.
The X-Files was once a great show, almost on the verge of ending Babylon 5's
near monopoly on intelligent, powerful and unabashedly political sci-fi (and all the while doing what B5 couldn't: cementing itself in the American mainstream). However, to my own utter dismay, in later seasons the show fell apart. I'd challenge even the most strident Phile to say the disastrous ninth season is something worth remembering.
It became clear that [series creator Chris] Carter and crew had no clear long-term vision for the show, and as a result of this and other factors (Duchovny's leaving, the ceding of creative control to stars' writing and directorial whims), the show disintegrated into desperate gibberish. The show should have ended in its fifth or sixth year, or if not, it should have had better control of itself. Instead of leaving on top, it sputtered to an ignominious and disappointing end. I seriously doubt another feature film could do anything but drag down the once-great show further—have we not learned our lesson from Star Trek?
Jeffrey O. Gustafson
PsicopJeffG(at)hotmail.com
'm kind of confused here? Are we watching the same shows?
To "get" anime, you have to watch it with a different set of eyes than you watch Western programming with. As a general rule, anime series fall somewhere between a movie and a regular television series. They have the length of a TV series but, like a movie, the action moves in a defined direction from start to finish. The move takes much longer than a movie, but it does happen. Because of this fact, momentum for many series doesn't start until somewhere in the second DVD. The first couple of hours are generally about building character and surrounding.
I also find anime to be more thought provoking than almost all Western programming. Rarely do I tune out a program on our (American) television and ponder/analyze what I just saw. Rarely do I watch American TV anymore and feel a connection with the characters that I make with the cast of a good anime series. I think that American producers could learn something from this style of programming; most of all, having their series have definite beginnings, endings, and a flow of how to get from start to finish. I think that the most successful programs/cinema are those that you get to see the characters progress through their struggles (the Lord of the Rings trilogy is an excellent example), something you rarely, if ever, see on American TV anymore. This is an area where I feel Hollywood is definitely far ahead of TV on.
Back to the point of the email. One of your [reviewer Tasha Robinson's] main points of disinterest with the anime seems to be the story, specifically about the placement of clues at different intervals during the show. One thing anime is famous for is dropping hints that lead to upcoming events. If you watch Airs Blue and his gang in the first DVD, you see hints of what the gang does on disc one. Likewise, things talked about on both disc one and two lead to events that happened later in the series. This is what I mean by it takes a different set of eyes to watch anime with. In a good anime series, things will make sense as the story progresses, but only if you pay attention to the series throughout, which is another thing that our TV doesn't make you do on a regular basis. I do agree with you on the animation. It is nothing special, but characters are clearly recognizable by appearance, and emotion/body language flows well though it.
You were talking about episode 14 being dry. This kind of thing happens to seemingly every anime series. Somewhere near the middle there's a review episode. This just happens to be it.
[In the review of Infinite Ryvius], you talk about Shinji being whiny. Consider what he's been through in his life. He witnessed the death of his mother, was sent away by his father, and when his father does want to see him, it's only to use him as a tool. One of his teammates is emotionless, the other is a mirror image of his personal hell that acts like a royal b----. Of the few friends he has, his father nearly kills one with Shinji watching, and Shinji is forced to kill another one with his own hands. All of this at age 15. No wonder the kid has problems. Whiny yes, but what do you expect with all of this? For him to walk up to the camera and say, "Hi, how the hell are ya?" Both Shinji and Asuka fit the description of being teens with traumatic pasts.
I also read your review of Neon Genesis Evangelion. The back of the box (VHS) for episodes 25 and 26 tells you exactly what is happening in the last two episodes: the completion of the human instrumentality project. Instrumentality isn't about characters being inside each others heads, as [Robinson] stated, but about all creatures becoming one with God. Gendo wants to create instrumentality to reunite with his wife, Yui, who is, during Evangelion, within unit 01. What is it that makes you think that Misato stabilizes after Kaji's death? She killed him, and it sent her, Shinji, and Asuka further into their recessive and weak psyches as she no longer has the strength to even attempt to hold together the makeshift family that once was. Even Pen turns her a cold shoulder.
[Robinson was] talking about episode 14 being dry. This kind of thing happens to seemingly every anime series. Somewhere near the middle there's a review episode. This just happens to be it. No series I've bought or watched has went without a review episode at some point during it's course.
Where is this psychic link that you talk about Gendo throwing everyone into. Gendo treated everyone around him as if they were a tool for him to use to reach and end, but he didn't throw them into some state of telepathic communication. The introspective scenes throughout the series (the train scene with Shinji is a good example, as are the scenes in the later episodes with Asuka and here demons) are the characters battling against how they perceive that everyone else in the world looks at them. There are no psychic links between characters. All of their battles are internal, with their own demons that they must conquer. One of the big questions the series raises is about the state of reality; Is reality something that can be defined or merely what we perceive. Many of the people around Shinji felt differently about him than he perceived (especially Misato, whose emotions about Shinji changed many times throughout the series. She was at times a sister, a mother, and during the movies even felt love toward Shinji), but it was his perception of how they judged him that drove his actions, and thus created his reality. The last two episodes are not about Shinji finding his purpose in life, but rather about him finding himself, and that his life is worth living.
This is the essence of what Evangelion is about, the battle that we all face to find ourselves and our place in life. Granted, our battles are nothing like this, it is a battle we all face at some point in our lives. It was after fighting this battle and coming out of depression that Anno wrote this series, which in itself explains a lot. This is a series so heavily inundated with both philosophical and theological references that multiple viewings are necessary to understand it all.
(Deep, deep, deep breath)
Whew, I didn't mean for this email to go on for as long as it did, but once it started flowing, it didn't want to stop. While I certainly don't want to be insulting (I hope I'm not), I just wanted to open your eyes to look more closely at what you're watching. Over the years, I've learned to love great anime more than our own television. The way a great anime can connect the viewers and the characters to create a bond and make the viewer care about what happens to them is something I feel is sorely lacking on our side of the pond on the small screen. I hope one day this drought is ended.
Thanks!
Brad Vest
bradvest(at)itiworks.com
Reviewer Tasha Robinson responds:
I agree that momentum for many anime series doesn't pick up until after the fourth or fifth episode. However, I think it's important to remember that most viewers are either watching these series on TV or renting/buying the DVDs one at a time. Given the cost of DVDs, and all the competing series out there, it really is relevant to most people whether that first disc, or those first few episodes, are interesting enough to make a series stand out. Not everyone has the money or the patience to tune in to a series for six weeks on television, or lay out $40 or more for the first several discs, in hopes that a series that starts out dull, or confusing, or cluttered, or uninteresting, or badly animated, will eventually get better. Ideally, all fans might watch an entire series before making any decision on it, but in practice they're far more likely to decide early on whether they want to get involved. Reviewing a series one disc at a time may not be entirely fair to the series as a whole, but it's certainly more fair to the people deciding whether to invest their time and money in that particular disc.
Regarding Shinji in Neon Genesis Evangelion: Certainly he does have every reason to be emotionally damaged and critically indecisive. I'm not arguing that. But while knowing the cause of something sometimes makes it more tolerable, it doesn't necessarily make it more entertaining to watch.
Regarding Instrumentality in Neon Genesis Evangelion: I don't see a "psychic link" (my term) and "all creatures becoming one with God" (yours) as being that terribly different; I was just trying to give away less information about the nature of the end of the series, to spare those who hadn't seen it yet. If the series ends with all of the characters together in the mind of God, they're certainly all mentally linked, in a manner of speaking.
Best,
Tasha
hould Fox bring back Firefly (and even the non sci-fi Keen Eddie)? Heck yes. Do I expect intellegence from any Fox network—heck no!
Get real. They are too busy with some bimbo willing to fool around with 30 guys for money (and it's not even good porn) or A Big Disgusting Fiance or When Gerbil's Attack.
Face it. X-Files was an anomaly. The SCI FI Channel should be doing what Bravo and Trio do. Give good shows a second chance. Not inflict crap like Sorbo in Space on us.
I liked Farscape, but it did go over the top for a while and lost a lot of fans. Introspection is good but the hero talking to a rock for an hour (can you say, "An actor wrote this?") and bad new characters lost part of the audience.
Stargate sometimes has more sharp, laugh-out-loud humor than many "must see" shows that actually are comedies. And then they follow it with that miracle of bad acting code name: 55 minutes too long.
Trio did Now and Again. They could do Firefly. Or Bravo... yeah... I get Bravo so they should buy it.
Nancy Myers
crowswork(at)yahoo.com
hough I must agree with Ian Kennedy that a lot of the later episodes of Andromeda seemed "senseless," that doesn't mean that the SCI FI Channel isn't getting their money's worth.
For some unknown reason, Andromeda was very successful in syndication, so it comes with an already eager fan base.
The budget for Andromeda has to be at bargain-basement prices compared to Farscape, which was lavish in using huge sets, layers of make-up on its characters and intelligent story lines, which also challenged the watcher to see every episode, just to keep up.
The SCI FI Channel doesn't have to use a wit of imagination to create the show and better yet,
gets a ready fan base and cheap production. What more could we ask for? Lots more, indeed.
A. Safron
asafron(at)earthlink.net
Back to the top.
