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.
eyonce Knowles as Lois Lane .... I can barely contain the outrage ("Knowles Up For Superman"). I've been a comic collector all my life, with Superman being one of my favorites. I understand the need to bring the Superman myth up to date, but I'm sorry, Beyonce Knowles as Lois Lane? Who the hell are
they kidding? If the Powers That Be at Warner Brothers do this, I will refuse to see this movie. She may be able to sing but she can't act her way out of a paper bag, let alone try to pull off a role such as this.
As a message to the Powers That Be at Warner's, you have a chance to start something here that could be one of the coolest movies ever. Do not screw it up by letting someone who wants to play off Beyonce Knowles' popularity. If you do this, I can promise it will come back and bite you in the ass. Do you guys really want another Batman & Robin?
I was just a kid when I saw Chris Reeve put on the Superman tights for the first time. I was amazed beyond belief. It wanted me to believe a man could fly. It would be nice if the powers at Warner Bros could make me feel that way again.
Brian Cody
bscanner_2000(at)yahoo.com
n his note ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve"), Kevin Ahearn made the point that anger distinguishes between great science fiction and typical science fiction. If this is the case, then here are a couple of examples of this.
Robert Heinlein was supposedly infuriated with the U.S. government when he wrote Starship Troopers. (The book is far superior to the horrible farce of a movie!) He was probably disgusted when he wrote "Farnham's Freehold."
Joe Haldeman was probably angry and reacting to Starship
Troopers when he wrote The Forever War. There was another of his novels, whose name escapes me at the moment, about a Buddist who was brainwashed into becoming an assassin. The story had an appropriate, but downer, ending.
George Orwell was certainly angry when he wrote 1984 and Animal Farm.
There are other examples I could come up with but for the lack of time. For what it's worth, this is my second draft of this note. My precious Netscape gave me the "Netscape has violated something-or-another" and then Netscape died on me. I've aggravated ..
Michael W. Bell
mikebell(at)netins.net
haven't visited Science Fiction Weekly for over a year, for the reason
so deftly explained by Kevin Ahearn in ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve") (Issue #354).
Call it chance, but something called me back, if for nothing more than to take a forlorn look at what has become of the genre I used to love. Imagine my utter lack of surprise to see two letters disagreeing with Mr. Ahearn ("SF Has Not Lost Its Sense of Wonder", "Anger Doesn't Make Great SF"), and none supporting his highly accurate contention. So, in all fairness you should keep the topic alive for another edition and
post this, the sole letter of agreement.
Those who disagree with Mr. Ahearn have probably never received a rejection letter from a New York publisher. I have, and for good reason. My prose stinks. But that's beside the point. More to Mr. Ahearn's point is what these rejection letters say. All of them, in one form or another, say that the rejected manuscript is not appropriate for the readers. Excuse me? When did science fiction become appropriate? I won't look too deeply into the meaning of that, and just translate it to mean it won't sell. Fair enough.
I just wonder if fans are aware that the establishment believes it's got them figured out. Note the word "believes." By their nature, it's impossible to figure out SF fans. We live in the possible world, not the—yawn—real world. We are the only target market that is
impossible to target. In order to get a bead on this huge, daydreaming and bored segment of consumers with money burning holes in their pockets, the big publishers, producers and studios have sought to destroy any vision of the future after a 20-year campaign of recycled concepts, live-action comics, and Politically Correct Starship Captains Sensitive Enough to Cry on Cue. They can now tell us what science fiction is and how unhip we are if we don't love it, but more
importantly, how abandoned we'll be if we don't buy it. Instead of exploring fertile worlds, science fiction is making what it can from fans too timid to leave terra firma for more fruited solar systems. It's only a matter of time until there's no target market left to take an aim. Didn't someone once say that rock 'n' roll would never die?
So, I emphatically agree with Mr. Ahearn that science fiction has lost its nerve. But I would make one refinement. Science fiction has become nervy. What nerve to make not only a bad movie out of Dune, but two Gucci-inspired TV versions. What nerve to "update" Battlestar Galactica with a sexpot cylon with 50 times more screentime than the CG centurions which would have been infinitely more gratifying had they been vacuumform costumes playing some role in the battle. What nerve of Sony to axe power armor, but supply a never ending stream of gun powder bullets in its bastardized version of Starship Troopers. What nerve of MIB to say aliens have always been here but people shouldn't know because "People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." The motto for any establishment if there ever was one.
I can't believe the nerve of all the authors, producers and directors who paint dismal futures filled with reluctant heroes driven by selfish desires to be "only human" instead of confronting the threat or status quo and in the end evolving into a better human.
What Mr. Ahearn was really pointing out is the lack of passion in recent SF. If anger is the impetuous for that passion, so be it. I know I'm angry. The genre of possibilities has become a bread stable good for milking, bleeding and butchering.
See you next year.
Kent Roller
kent(at)islandnetworksolutions.com
egarding Nathan Brazil's comments ("Leaders' Ideologies Should Be Ignored") in the latest Science Fiction Weekly...
I grow tired of the premise [that] all wars are bad wars, and that all ordinary men are simply stupid pawns in chess matches waged between stereotypically malevolent world leaders. This philosophy essentially makes elected officials the equivalent of dictators, damns noble causes at the same time it damns petty conflicts and seems to make no moral or intellectual distinction between the combatants in any struggle.
Put in a science fiction context, Brazil would have us believe that there is no difference between the Empire and the Rebellion, the Federation and the Romulans or Klingons, Dr. Who and the Daleks, the Colonials or the Cylons, House Atreides and House Harkonnen, humans and Kzinti, etc. etc.
If all wars are "bad" and are fought for "bad" reasons by "bad" leaders in "bad" government, then the entire 20th century is pointless, as is the current war against terrorism that engages us in the 21st. And I, as a United States Army Reservist, am just a dumb lackey to those nasty, bad people in bad government. I suppose my uniformed brothers and sisters bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq are also in the service of Badness?
Hey, it would have been nice to have had the option of saying "NO!" to al Quaeda on the morning of September 11, 2001. Unfortunately the occupants of four jetliners, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon discovered that words simply aren't effective when dealing with criminal mass murderers. Likewise, countless rafts of paper "NO!" were floated in Hussein's direction by the United Nations, and it never stopped the mass graves, nor much else on Saddam's agenda.
In fact, sometimes there really is no alternative to fighting. X-Files conspiracy theory aside, sometimes the elected government really is trying to do what is best for the citizenry. And while loss of life is unfortunate, I shudder to think what might have happened if all of the free world's participants in all of the 20th century's wars had simply said "NO!" when the call to service came. This Island Earth might right now be under the heel of a dreadful dark age, the likes of which Orwell or Dick never dreamed.
Hurrah for those brave enough to say, "YES!"
Brad R. Torgersen
brt(at)sub-odeon.com
rom the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
Word: Amazon
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from Greek Amazon
1: (capitalized): a member of a race of female warriors of Greek mythology.
2: a tall, strong, often masculine woman.
I submit this definition, just in case Charisma Carpenter reads Science Fiction Weekly, because she obviously doesn't have a clue as to what an Amazon is, as it pertains to Wonder Woman ("Carpenter Eyes Wonder Woman"). To put it simply, Ms. Carpenter: You're too soft and too small to play WW. I mean, you're 5'6", if you're an inch! Where's your muscle tone?
Why are all these little, teeny, tiny women trying to get the role of WW, when they're obviously not the right type?
I've said it once and I'll say it again: Wonder Woman is an Amazon! Therefore, she must be 6-feet tall and physically strong. That's why Joanie "Chyna" Laurer would make the pristine WW.
However, since most men (I not included) is still intimidated by strong women, she'll probably won't get the part.
Therefore, my second choice would be Julie Strain. Unfortunately, she won't get the part either, because people (mostly women) still turn their noses up at ex-porn stars (just look at poor Traci Elizabeth Lords).
So, in the end, we'll probably end up with some little, skinny, overly girly WW, like Ms. Carpenter. I can just see it now: "Wonder Woman: The Movie, starring Lucy Liu" ... ugh!
Adam Boudreaux
trekadamg(at)webtv.net
o Joe Straczynski: Please [do] not [make] another attempt [at] another Babylon 5 spin-off. To quote Susan Ivanova, "This is not some kind of deep space franchise." The original series was
fantastic, certainly some of the best sci-fi put on television. The show had weaknesses from time to time, but overall it was very good. However, the TV movies that were not related to the original story arc, and the dreadful Legend of the Rangers [proved] that there have already been too many trips to the same well.
Do not let the great accomplishment that was B5 be watered down by later, lesser projects. Just look at the joke Star Trek has become. There is a lesson there, every subsequent series was lesser than the original, the same is true for B5, don't ride on its success, go out and create something new.
Rick Sala
ricksala(at)comcast.net
his letter is in response to Mr. Scott Edelman's [editorial], "Storming the Fortress With a Confusion of Critics."
"With great power comes great responsibility." These words of wisdom were thought up by a gentleman by the name of Stan Lee in 1962. Though what he says is the truth, you most likely will never find it in any works celebrating phrases that are considered to be timeless classics worthy of respect. Why? For the reason that it had appeared in a comic book that had introduced a superhero who himself has gone on to achieve legendary status. Not just because of his powers but for also the fact that he was written to be an everyman. The fact that he had been given superhuman powers did not release him from the problems of every day life.
I put between a long time and never for speculative fiction to achieve the respect from mainstream literature, in particular, and people in general. I wonder how George Orwell's classic Animal Farm would have been received if he were a fantasy writer. He used the farm and farm animals to be a reflection of the race and nature of man especially with how the acquisition of power changes him and not necessarily for the better. The naysayers who believe that "such things could never happen" like they do in speculative fiction sometimes forget the fact that the props of these stories are used to construct tales that mirror what happens in real life, people's hope for miracles and the possibilities of the extraordinary, sometimes making a guest-appearance in ordinary life.
I read Jonathan Lethem's Gun, with Occasional Music several years ago. I enjoyed it. I am looking forward to reading his novel The Fortress of Solitude. I have been reading nothing but positive reviews about the book on the net. The Fortress will stand.
Julian Gift
lira-b(at)tstt.net.tt
. Night Shyamalan is preparing another exceptional science fiction
thriller for fans called The Village. And since the utter success of Signs, fans are sure to anticipate yet another original science-fiction classic for this century by one of today's most originally inventive science fiction storytellers.
The Sixth Sense, M. Night Shyamalan's unrivaled breakthrough into science-fiction films, was the last great film I saw in the 20th century. Even though it shared 1999 with integral science fiction impacts like Star Wars: Episode I, The Matrix and The Green Mile, The Sixth Sense broke new ground with a most originally formatted premise which had earned its inescapable recognition at the Academy Awards. Especially with one of the most haunting surprise endings in science-fiction films alongside others in the original Planet of the Apes, Bladerunner (the director's cut) and The Quiet Earth.
Bruce Willis, whose science-fiction credits include Armageddon, The Fifth Element, 12 Monkeys, Death Becomes Her and Shyamalan's Unbreakable, shall probably be remembered by fans of the genre for The Sixth Sense most. As well as Haley Joel Osment whose opportunity to enhance the child's role in a Shyamalan story (as the opportunities of Spencer Treat Clark, Rory Culkin and Abigail Breslin) has established him as one of human history's most revered child icons.
The Sixth Sense, with due regard to other fateful classics by the acclaimed writer-director, will always be hard to match.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
'm new to this site, so I'm not certain if this is the correct forum for this, but I'm writing to
recommend what I consider to be the greatest sci-fi book I ever read. The name of the book is The Lincoln Exchange, and it was written by a guy named Melvin Rabinowitz. I could be wrong here, but I would assume that it's the only sci-fi book about Abraham Lincoln that has ever been written.
As one may have guessed, it's a time-travel story, which is probably the only kind of science fiction tale that could involve Lincoln and, as I read it, it just sucked me in. The story is very complex, yet it's written so clearly that it's very easy to follow. The story is very funny, which seems to be a rarity in most stories of this type, yet it reduced me to tears at times. And, believe it or not, although it's in our favorite genre, most of the story is actually true. (Out of curiosity, I did some research. As far as I could determine, all the
relevant facts are accurate.) Rabinowitz used some relatively obscure facts about Lincoln to weave this delicious tale.
When Lincoln was a young man, he made a trip down the Mississippi with a friend named Alan Gentry. Other than that, it seems, Gentry is lost to history. So Rabinowitz, in this book, made Gentry a contemporary of ours who, for various reasons that are clearly explained in the book, goes back in time to make that trip with Lincoln. It's the classic fish-out-of-water story, only different fish are out of different waters at various times.
The descriptions of the settings, and particularly of the actual time travel, are surrealistic. Mind boggling! I couldn't help but constantly form mental pictures as I read through it, and kept thinking, "Movie! Movie! Movie!" Even the time machine had a kind of personality, quirks and all! Then I read some of the reviews and it seems that several of those
critics were in complete agreement with me.
I'm not of the belief that books can change one's life, but I have to say that this one came awfully close. Rabinowitz espouses a circularity of time and a kind of fatalism of events. This, of course, has been done before—what hasn't?—but not as convincingly as he has expressed it.
So, if any of you want to have an almost mind-blowing experience, I highly recommend that you get hold of this one. If any of you has already read it, I would be thrilled to know how you felt about it.
Stuart Chase
stuartchase2003(at)yahoo.com
read with interest the letter regarding Firefly by Mr. Loveman ("Firefly Fans Need Serenity Now,") and I
couldn't agree more. This series took the Roddenberry concept of "Wagon Train in space" and elevated it beyond anything that Star Trek has done. The minimum use of techno speak and a future that someone could actually see as possible makes this into a series that transports the viewer into the story in a way that nothing on television has done in quite a while. In this effort Joss Whedon lives up to the "genius" accolades that people always apply to him. Unfortunately, genius can exist in people who act in very petty ways. This is illustrated by the direction of his other effort, Angel, since he has assumed the helm.
I was interested in reading [Science Fiction Weekly's] interviews with the Angel cast for their 100th episode however I was unhappy that you chose not to speak to the returning star Charisma Carpenter. I was looking forward to someone finally asking the hard questions regarding her departure from the show now that some time has passed. Equally, I was disappointed with the indirect responses and
limited credit that was expressed by Mr. Whedon regarding her contribution to the Angel's success over the previous four years.
I have previously written regarding my own unhappiness with the direction the show was taking this season and from emails received regarding my letters I know that I am not alone. Having watched all of this season's episodes, including the 100th, I think that things have worsened. Mr. Whedon does not seem to care for the opinions of the original fans of Angel but rather seems intent on reinventing the show as the "new and improved" Buffy. Constant references to the parent show and guest starring stints for characters that were ancillary on Buffy have detracted from the show that the fans grew to enjoy. It seems as though the spark had left the original cast and their importance to the show has been diluted to the point that they are insignificant to the plotline. The sole exception was the episode "You're Welcome" in which the original
cast seemed to beam at the return of a fellow cast member that was clearly a friend as well as a co-worker. This episode had all of the family feel that is absent from every other episode of season five.
Angel was a show that was not about a young person finding their place in the world through their high school and college experiences and at the same time coping with their special place in the world. It was, in fact, the story of two people finding their destiny. One old,
immortal and damaged emotionally and the other young, mortal, immature and self-involved. As the story and the characters evolved it did not center on Angel alone, but on Cordelia as well. This was true from the earliest episodes of the show. While Mr. Whedon didn't write all of episodes of the show perhaps he should have watched them. He would have understood that the twin pillars that the show were constructed around were Angel and Cordelia. They were the only characters present from the beginning of the show. Later, on a fundamental part of the show
would be the relationship that grew between the maturing characters. Mr. Whedon claims that this was an unpopular direction for the characters. He clearly has not listened to the fans of Angel whom were supportive of what was viewed as a more natural pairing of two adults that had grown together.
I think that I can say again that the original fans of Angel hope that the character of Cordelia will return, at least on a recurring basis, one episode was not enough. This may be
difficult for Charisma Carpenter given the apparent petty behavior of Mr. Whedon in writing her character out and the fans will understand if she chooses not to should the opportunity arise. Recurring status would also allow her to pursue other projects as well. If The WB is smart, and they haven't shown it so far, they will make her an offer that she can't refuse and bring truth to her next to the last line in episode 100, which was, "I'll be seeing you!"
Doug Dale
ddale(at)coda-continuum.com
Back to the top.
