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.
ritics of the recent space announcements have pointed out that Bush's crewed missions to the moon and Mars are scheduled far beyond the end of his term." This statement, in the opening paragraph of [Wil McCarthy's column], is only the tip of the iceberg here. What Bush is doing is the same thing two of his predecessors did before him. Ronald Reagan once called on this country to set the goal of establishing a permanent manned orbital space station by the middle of the 1990's—it didn't happen. The 1990's were, of course, well beyond Reagan term of office.
On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy stood before a joint session of Congress and said, "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth." Again, a president set a goal before the nation with its achievement set after he was expected to finish a full 8 year term (Kennedy, had he lived and been re-elected, would have had to leave office at the end of 1968). This goal was achieved, but not in the way most visionaries such as Robert Heinlein and Arthur C. Clarke had envisioned it.
Pre-Apollo-era science fiction usually depicted the undertaking of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth as using well-built transports that were capable of handling heavy strain and endurance. The actual project would never have been able to perform or survive the stresses its many fictional counterparts endured. Take a look at the ship from Destination Moon—it was built with the structural strength of an ocean liner. The Apollo LM, was built of lightweight materials—the hull was so thin, that a kick in the wrong place would have punctured it.
My point, is that a Mars expedition realistically could not be undertaken using such equipment. A Mars mission will require a strong, heavy-duty lander to work. In addition, the spacecraft would need to have a viable long-lasting life support system The current Space Shuttle can only carry enough LS to keep a crew alive for a maximum of two weeks. A Mars mission
would require a system that could operate for 18 months! Not even the International Space Station has that capability; supplies are sent up to it on a regular basis; supplies including oxygen. NASA, some years ago, had said a viable Mars mission would be possible by the end of the 21st century.
Bush's goals are, I'm afraid, a little too ambitious for the time period he has stipulated. The moonbase objective may be doable and desirable. I had commented once to friend of mine back in 2001 that according to Kubrick's vision, it should have already been a reality.
We need to get things in focus. Safety is something we should always strive for in the space program, but not to the cost of cowardice.
O'Keefe's decision to end the Hubble project—like it or not and whatever the reasons—would eventually be inevitable. The Hubble Space Telescope Project was originally designed in the 1970s and launched in 1990. For years, this project was something the public looked forward to with as much anticipation as the first manned moon landing. Hubble's accomplishments—like the Telstar 1 satellite—are extraordinary. And like Telstar, Hubble has been overtaken by technology and is now obsolete—you said so yourself. A new space telescope is in the works and should be in orbit in a few more years. So, the passing of Hubble is an unfortunate, but inevitable conclusion.
Though I cannot—in the long run—disagree with O'Keefe's decision; I must vehemently disagree with what is planned for the Hubble in the end. Hubble, has served this country for one and a half decades and I don't believe something like that should be thrown out (burned up) like a piece of trash! I believe—and perhaps others can agree—that the Hubble should not be
destroyed as NASA is currently planning. This satellite is a national treasure, and deserves a better fate. I believe NASA should be persuaded to send one last mission to Hubble. This mission would be financed by a number of sources including the Smithsonian Institute. Its purpose would be to retrieve the Hubble Space Telescope and returning it safely to the Earth. The Hubble would then take its rightful place in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum alongside other noteworthy satellites. Unlike most of the satellites on display there, this would be that actual satellite—something the NASM almost can never get. This satellite is a national treasure. It should be preserved for posterity.
Keith R. Robey
robeykr(at)hotmail.com
Columnist Wil McCarthy responds:
Keith, landing the Hubble in a space shuttle payload bay would violate dozens of NASA's basic safety guidelines, and couldn't happen without an executive order or an act of Congress. Given the costs involved, this seems unlikely, although it's certainly a romantic notion. Either way, we do need to scrape the yellow off NASA's belly.
For an alternate view on the costs and feasibility of a Mars mission, try the Mars Society home page at www.marssociety.org. Rock on.
Best,
Wil
was sorry to hear that the series Angel has been canceled. But I can't say I'm surprised. This season has been pretty bad. The show was at its best when it was just Angel, Cordelia and Wesley. The show then had a lot more action and was able to focus more detail on the characters. Now, all Angel does is sit around his desk at Wolfram & Hart. It was a big mistake to put him there. Also, the cast is too large, so Angel sometimes is hardly in the show.
I told my wife at the beginning of this season when they added the character of Spike to the show this would be the end. Spike would be an OK guest-star, but not a regular. It took away from Angel's uniqueness. I mean, would you want to read Superman if he was constantly being over-shadowed by another Kryptonian? If The WB would change their minds (which I doubt), Angel needs to focus on Angel again. And add more action scenes, I miss those old fight scenes. Good luck to the cast, I really do hope to see a sixth season.
Rick Haney
Erhlah(at)aol.com
s the news of Angel's cancellation sinks in, I find myself scanning the message boards as people vent their frustration and begin to mount efforts to prevent the show's demise. It occurs to me how many times I have seen this scenario played out with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Farscape, Babylon 5 and Firefly. Indeed it has become a dark time for genre television these days. More shows (sci-fi and otherwise) are being phased out in favor of "reality" programs that have popped up on nearly every network.
It is easy to say that the powers-that-be are morons and don't know what they're doing. But coming from a background broadcasting myself I can't help but see their reasoning, at least from a purely fiscal point of view. Reality shows are cheap to make, yet they grab big ratings. Genre shows require producers with vision, an exceptional writing staff, a special-effects budget and good actors to bring it all together. All of which costs money.
But more than, that is the fact that regardless of how many viewers a good sci-fi show
has, we never seem to constitute the right Nielsen demographic that advertisers want. It boils down to whether or not we buy the products they advertise on the commercial breaks that will ultimately decide the fate of our favorite shows. Which is ironic because no one really likes the Nielsen Ratings. Network programmers hate it because they have to bunch up their best episodes during sweeps. Viewers hate it because it means long stretches of reruns. Producers hate it because their shows might die an early death. Advertisers hate it because they think networks use it as an excuse to hike up the price of airtime.
So we continue to send letters and emails, sign petitions and take out ads to keep our shows alive all because of an arbitrary system that nobody can stand. The battles we have fought have been numerous and ongoing with many good shows lying dead along the way. I, for one, am becoming weary of being an activist just so I can have something to decent to watch.
Perhaps our saving grace lies in the advent of DVD. With more shows making their way onto this format, finally its the program that's the product. When someone buys Farscape it doesn't matter if he's 19 or 90. Because of high DVD sales, shows like Family Guy and Firefly might actually get a second chance. Let us hope that someday a show's survival will depend on the size of its following rather than how much toothpaste or detergent we buy.
Max Gremlin
MaxGremlin(at)aol.com
his is in response to Doug Dale's "Cordelia Will Be Seeing You":
Doug, I could not disagree with you more. I have never been a fan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but I have been a devoted fan of Angel ever since the first episode aired. I must say that I have been glad to see Cordelia depart from the show. In fact, I wish it had happened sooner. Her character in the last two seasons has become boring, to say the least. She unsuccessfully tried to fill the "prophetic character" void left by the departure of Doyle in the first season, and became extremely dull and depressing in the process. Cordelia, from the first season, was fun and spunky, and despite her ditzy-ness had her brilliant moments. In the course of the show, Cordelia's character became unrecognizable. Every time she spoke in the last few seasons it was like hearing nails on a chalkboard. Her "romance" with Angel's son was inappropriate to say the least, and her "romance" with Angel was unconvincing, predictable and totally unbelievable. Knowing the two characters, one can understand why Cordelia would fall for Angel, but I can not see why Angel would find Cordelia attractive, especially in her latest incarnation. Simply said, their romance was cheesy. The show is a million times better now that she is gone. Thank you, Mr. Whedon, we original fans salute you.
Angelina Phoenix
angelinaphnx(at)yahoo.com
read with some interest Doug Dale's email "Cordelia Will Be Seeing You" regarding the once
cult-favorite, Angel.
This fifth season of Angel, despite a few scribes who called it clever and critically acclaimed, has been lackluster and far below its once-stellar standard.
I, for one, once a die-hard Angel fanatic, no longer arrange my schedule to catch the show. I used to watch it, and tape it: dying to re-view the episode to make sure I saw it all. But this year, why bother? The characters have become unlikable: Angel bored, brooding (what, again?) and drifting aimlessly; Gunn is super-lawyer, and smarmingly self-centered and Machiavellian; Fred still talks nonstop, and is physician, physicist and research scientist extraordinaire; Wes has little to no screen time; and Lorne has a cell phone permanently up to his ear. Who cares?
(And then there is Eve, some sort of she-demon who simply sucks the life and energy from every scene she wanders into.)
The family vibe is gone. The Wolfram & Hart set looks something like a new county library, minus the books. And the dialogue for almost the first 10 episodes this season involved droning on and endlessly on about battling evil from the inside, doing more good with all these resources, yada yada. It was tedious.
The mission of helping the helpless feels more like helping themselves. Self interest replaced self sacrifice.
A storyline about the seduction of wealth and power could be interesting, but the viewers have to care. We have to like the people. And Joss Whedon has made them very unlikable this year.
And for this to follow last season's almost clever, but utterly distasteful and completely repellent story of demon possession and impregnation, with a vaguely incestuous child seduction, viewers have little patience to wait for an upbeat turn. Joss took one of the most admired and inspirational characters, Cordelia Chase, and made her the evil architect of horror after
horror.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
And, oops. No redemption for her. Coma. Actress dismissed. Mission to help the helpless not important.
True, the 100th episode, "You're Welcome" was a wonderful tribute, beautifully crafted and a terrific send-off for Charisma Carpenter's Cordy. The episode brought back everything that the season missed: family, self-sacrifice, helping the helpless. It's ironic that this terrific episode makes the case for everything that is wrong about the rest of the season.
I join with The WB and growing numbers of viewers: Its time for Angel to finish its run.
Sometimes writers can be too clever for their own good. Moral: Week after week, we still want to like our TV heroes. We want the good guys to eventually win. We invite these characters into our homes every week, so to keep getting invitations, don't annoy us.
Don't mess with us, because the viewers always win.
Speaking about his viewers, Joss Whedon once said, "I don't give them what they want, I give them what they need."
Such arrogance was his downfall.
Michael Fissinger
fissinger(at)surfnetinc.com
'd like to offer a response to the letter titled "Wonder Woman Needs to Be Tall". According to the author, Charisma Carpenter is too short and "soft" to play Diana/Wonder Woman. The easiest comment to address is the description of Ms. Carpenter as "soft." As a former dancer and professional cheerleader she is, by most definitions, considered "fit" and "athletic."
Now, onto the sticky description of Amazons, which are a part of Ancient Greek Mythology. I stress the Ancient aspect because it is impossible to apply modern-day connotations of height, weight, beauty, etc., to historical periods. Point of interest, a women during the European Renaissance, defined as the epitome of feminine beauty, would by today's standards be considered overweight.
A woman of Charisma Carpenter's stature, which IMDb lists as 5'7", would be considered tall by Ancient Greek Standards and thus meet the Amazon definition supplied in the above-mentioned letter. Keep in mind that as of the turn of the 19th Century the average height of women was only 4'10".
I realize that historical reality doesn't often mesh with moviegoer's perceptions, so I offer up the fact that the two modern incarnations of Wonder Woman, Lynda Carter (5'9") and Cathy Lee Crosby (5'7"), are similar in height and build to Ms. Carpenter.
The most important factor, when transferring a comic book character to the big screen, is to find an actor that can breath life into the character. One that best portrays all aspects of that character (mental, emotional and physical). Casting someone on the physical portrayal alone (for instance WWE star "Chyna" as offered in the letter) does a major disservice to the character. If all that was important were the look of the character then X-Men fans would have missed out on Hugh Jackman's wonderful portrayal of Wolverine. Obviously a 6'2" Australian could never play a 5'3" Canadian.
In closing, I offer that Charisma Carpenter does fit the bill of Wonder Woman in that she will be able to offer the character a sense of humor, wonder and an emotional connection between the audience and this stranger in a strange land, while still having the "look" of Diana.
Nicole Raposo
morrigan_2575(at)yahoo.com
ather than tiptoe around the politically correct elephant in the living room ("Superman Should Fly Without Beyonce"),
may I point out that Ms. Knowles is African-American, and thus unsuitable to
portray Lois Lane?
While we're at it, let's make Jimmy Olsen gay and by all means throw in a sub-plot where he suffers sexual harrassment at the hands of Perry White.
(Although if memory serves, Jimmy did cross-dress at one point...)
Jeff Elkins
jeffelkins(at)earthlink.net
his letter is in response to the letter written by Mr. B. Cody ("Superman Should Fly Without Beyonce") on why Beyonce shouldn't be considered for the role of Lois Lane. I think and many know why such a statement like that is made. It's made because she's black, or for many out there, African-American. As time and opinions move from the background to the foreground, the old-fashioned attitudes and standards have to change. Why can't a person such as Beyonce play the roles, once dominated my white actresses? If her acting capabilities can be sharpened and honed, why not? The new and hot crop of actors and actresses is shifting and getting younger. For example, when the 007 franchise runs out of ideas for the "next" Bond, who will they go with? I think that any actor, regardless of color, could play the role easily. I feel, as most do, the we must get away from this idea that only white actors/actress can play the "traditional" roles as they've always done. Let the new kids get a chance too.
Robe Connedi
wenrob(at)inreach.com
found it fascinating that Brad R. Torgersen ("Not All Wars Are Bad") was more worked up about what he thought
I'd said, rather than what I actually did say. My comment was that "all wars are created
and promoted by evil people who do not, personally risk their lives." This is not the
same thing as saying all wars are bad or unjust. All nations have the right to defend
themselves when attacked, providing they pick the right target. Nor did I claim that
ordinary men are "stupid pawns." What I said was, "we are all being used in deadly games,
and only when we open our eyes, will we learn the truth." When Big Oil and Fundamentalist
religions collide, the ordinary people suffer. By their actions and words, Bush and Bin Laden both have a great deal in common with the philosophies and attitudes of Shadows and Vorlons.
Mr. Torgersen also claimed that I would have people believe that there is no difference between the Empire and the Rebellion, etc, and that much is true. History proves it, to anyone not already blinded by ideology. As Ambassodor Kosh put it, "The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote." In the real world, all nations who have been defacto rulers of the world have accomplished great and good things, but all have also condoned great evil. Democracy and Fundamentalism are just encounter suits. Strip them away, and you find the elite on both sides, manufacturing reasons for ordinary people to kill each other.
Sadly, Mr. Torgersen showed that he is still caught up in the illusion, with his woeful misreading of what is being done in Iraq. Also, when he stated that "words simply aren't effective when dealing with criminal mass murderers." How does he differentiate between the thousands of innocent civilians that have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the victims of 9/11 in the United States? The idea that so-called Democracy can be imposed by force, is surely no different than the Shadows using conflict as a means to effect progress. Just as religious Fundamentalism has its analogy in the deceitful manipulations of the Vorlons. However, I would agree that sometimes there is really is no alternative to fighting. I just think that attacking other countries pre-emptively, and bare-faced lies about the reasons for such criminal strikes, are far more Klingon than Federation.
Finally, in answer to Mr. Torgersen's shudder, when he thought "what might have happened
if all of the free world's participants in all of the 20th century's wars had simply said 'NO!'" Then the answer is blatantly obvious. There would not have been a single war.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazilREMOVETHIS(at)freeuk.com
ent Roller ("Recent SF Is Devoid of Passion") Roller and Kevin Ahearn ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve") might be right when they say that anger has driven great SF. Roller might even have given us a few apposite examples, but Ahearn is far from right to characterize anger as being SF literature's best motivation. I would argue that it's not even about passion.
It's compassion, gentlemen, not anger and resentment, that has given writers the insight to create great fiction. Haldeman may have been angry about Vietnam, Orwell was concerned about totalitarianism encroachments on freedom and maybe Heinlein was "disgusted," but this wasn't their sole motivation. They cared enough about their audience to treat them intelligently and had
enough compassion about the political, moral and ethical dimensions of what they were writing to make it the very best they could. If you have no compassion, then what are you doing reading SF literature anyway?
Bellicose statements and ridiculous simplifications don't make for either reasonable argument or decent manners in SFW's letters column.
And let me just say this—Starship Troopers is a relevant, scathing and funny film—an indictment on Fascism, consumer culture and the cult of the perfect body. And yeah, it's even got a thing or two to say about anger.
Andrew Frost
tezby(at)hotmail.com
lthough I agree with the bulk of Kent Roller's e-mail ("Recent SF Is Devoid of Passion"), as well as Kevin Ahearn's earlier letter ("Science Fiction Has Lost Its Nerve"), there is one small point I keep reading about that I have to address. Twice in this week's letters page, someone picked on Starship Troopers, the movie.
I admit, when I first saw it in 1997, I thought it was preposterous. The scientific and technological elements of the story cannot be explained: soldiers using automatic rifles against giant insects, asteroids hurled through space by giant insects, and giant insects living on planets otherwise devoid of life. Heinlein's original book was clearly thought-out a bit better.
Most movie critics missed the satire; Is this something that other people have overlooked as well? Starship Troopers is, to me, a film that fits perfectly with Mr. Ahearn's desire for "angry" science fiction. The film, using spaceships and aliens, constructs an updated propaganda film, using the exact structure of wartime movies made by Nazis, Communists and the United States. We are presented with the ultimate dehumanized enemy, an insect. Even though it is human aggression that started the war, young people's patriotism is exploited in a series of fruitless battles on planets not worth fighting over. Rhetoric means more than intelligent thought.
In the second World War, we fought "Japs"; in Korea and Vietnam, it was "gooks"; in the Middle East, we fight "camel-jockeys" and "towel-heads." Our enemies become caricatures, making it easier for us to slaughter them. In literature and movies, we see bestial Orcs, faceless Stormtroopers, mechanical Battle Droids and the barely human Agents of the matrix. The "bugs" of Starship Troopers are even less human, but who are we meant to sympathize with, the bugs, or the good-looking cast of cheerful Nazis?
I may have missed the point. I have yet to hear a proper argument that criticizes this movie. But, the way I see it, this movie is angry, passionate and addresses real issues the way science-fiction is meant to. (OK, it could have done it with a little more scientific plausibility). I encourage readers of this site to e-mail me with their responses.
Robbie Sundquist
pooneil3(at)hotmail.com
Back to the top.
