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.
hy cancel Angel ("Joss Whedon Deserves No Thanks", "Angel Has Moved in Right Direction")? [It's a] pre-emptive strike by the bean counters at WB.
It was during the fifth season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that The WB and Whedon got into a major fight over the price of the show. As I understand it, if a show makes
it past the fifth season, the producers of the program generally get more money per episode.
This time, instead of dealing with negotiating a new price, the folks at The WB just shot the program. Neat. Simple. No negotiation. No new fight, like over Buffy.
Argue about the direction of the show and which characters you think should have been in or left out or take in a different direction all you want. I doubt that the bean counters at The WB ever planned for Angel to exist past the fifth season.
Garry Ward
Garry.E.Ward(at)worldnet.att.net
cience Fiction Weekly's Letters column starkly illuminates the difference between SF in written form and on television. The readers' incessant debating the virtues of their favorite TV series tells us much about TV sci-fi—and none of it is good.
TV sci-fi is never meant to surprise. This has to do with the nature of the medium; it sets strict limits on what can be put on the screen. Mostly because of money (though the price drop of computer graphics has had some positive effect) ... but also because a weekly serial format and a recurring cast of characters demand repetition and familiarity.
Let's face it: Star Trek set the rules for sci-fi TV series, and the same moldy old plotlines have been regurgitated ever since:
1. One character (or several) is Possessed By An Alien Entity, and goes mad/lustful/overly intelligent/ambitious. (This plot is re-used because "alien possession" doesn't require elaborate sets or expensive special effects.)
2. The cast encounters the Monster of the Week. (One saves money on making just one Monster suit.)
3. The cast visits a planet made of neon-lit papier-maché and walks around in circles, or visit an alien world resembling the wilderness of California/Canada. (The budget again.)
4. The cast encounter aliens who resemble humans in every significant respect, fight some, and have a harmless exchange of semi-intellectual platitudes.
5. A cast member is dying, and is saved at the last minute and with great effort. (Cast members are never killed off except when an actor quits the show.)
The one thing you can be sure about in 90 percent of sci-fi TV series is that its cultural values and taboos are about 30 to 40 years behind those of the actual present. Realistic dramas on HBO are far more daring and surprising than any "fantastic" programming.
Your letter-page debate among the fans is always about trifles and petty details. Most of them would be terrified if their favorite TV shows did something truly out of the ordinary. They crave the comfort of a world which promises the "amazing," but always delivers the same stock situations and environments.
Then there is the unspoken sideline of the cult shows: fan-fiction, which gives the fans the chance to live out the fantasies of what the TV shows never dare or can show (i.e., sex), or write hum-drum soap-operas which are even more predictable than the originals.
No matter how good a sci-fi series starts out, it will inevitably fall into this repetitive pattern. Because to do otherwise is to break out of the rigid weekly-series framework and budgetary restraints. Some good material can, of course, be done within the limits of the format, but not for long. The money will run out, and the scriptwriters will run into the limits of what is allowed to do on network television.
If the fans would come to terms with this reality, they might stop watching most of what passes for science fiction on TV ... or at least stop pretending it's "different" from any soap-opera or sitcom. But I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.
A.R.Yngve
[e-mail withheld by request]
'd like to comment about the recent article on "Marvelous Miscasting Abounds".
Has anyone thought about Lucy Lawless? I believe she is the only perfect woman for the role of Wonder Woman!
Tarzan is no longer, so unless she is doing something else I vote for her! Anyone else with me?
Thanks for letting me have my say.
Judi Murphy
Piscean_48(at)yahoo.com
f you're truly looking for a woman of Amazonian proportions to fill the costume of Wonder Woman ("Marvelous Miscasting Abounds", "Wonder Woman Needs to Be Tall"), look no farther than B-movie diva, pin-up queen and former Penthouse Pet Julie Strain. She's 6' 1" (in flats), busty, athletic and is no stranger to skimpy costumes.
While Strain's acting won't win her any major awards, she'd definitely look the part and ensure repeat viewings and DVD sales amongst the fanboy set. As Strain says of herself, she's "6'1" and worth the climb."
Roman Gheesling
tienlung(at)hotmail.com
i, Scott—nice editorial on the importance of Peter Jackson's win ("The Lord of the Oscars"). I, too, hope it heralds a sea change in the way Hollywood views the fantastic.
Because I'm a nitpicker, though, I must point out that you could not have spent "those post-Oscar Mondays stumbling around woozy" since you were a kid: Up until very recently, the Academy Awards were given out on Monday night, not Sunday, so those would have been post-Oscar Tuesdays!
Nick [last name withheld]
NicknNora(at)aol.com
Editor Scott Edelman responds:
See what I mean? The Oscars leave me so tired, I can't even remember the days of the week!
Best,
Scott
just finished reading your "The Lord of the Oscars" editorial at [Science Fiction Weekly] and had to write. I, too, sat up late last night watching and cheering for
Peter Jackson and the Rings.
Reading your editorial expressed in words the feelings I had last night. All night I had been unconsciously saying to myself, "Peter Jackson and the Rings have to win this year." I was
surprised and elated when the Rings won all it had been nominated for. I cheered when Peter Jackson talked about the "F" word. I work with people who aren't "into" sci-fi or fantasy. It was wonderful to come home from work and read my feelings expressed so eloquently at [Science Fiction Weekly]. It's always nice to know I'm not alone.
Marj Martin
martinjeff(at)mchsi.com
our editorial ("The Lord of the Oscars") on the Oscar wins by the Lord of the Rings put into words exactly how I felt as the evening unfolded.
It's been hard to explain to friends who are not SF/fantasy/horror fans (even if they enjoyed the Lord of the Rings movies) why this was so important, but now I can refer them to your piece and they'll understand. Our literature is undervalued, we are viewed as immature for enjoying comics and graphic novels, our movies and television shows tend to be ghetto-ized and praised only as aberrations ("surprisingly good considering it's got a fantasy/horror/sf theme"). It can be frustrating.
Thank you for saying so well what a lot of us are feeling.
Sue Coffman
SCoffman(at)ReedSmith.com
just finished reading your article on the Lord of the Rings performance at the Oscars ("The Lord of the Oscars"). I just wanted to drop you a line to thank you for your insight and feeling on this issue. I, too, remember reading over and over until all of the characters seemed like old, comfortable friends.
I am also of the Star Wars generation and I get a huge kick out of watching the movies with my kids and hearing them quote lines like old hands. Anyway, to cease my digression, you said about equaling the most Oscars won, but, I did hear somewhere that until this year the most Oscars awarded to a film that won in all categories nominated was 9.
As I said, this was mentioned in the lead up to the awards so I am not sure how valid this is.
Thanks again.
Robert Bliss
jarki5(at)dodo.com.au
Editor Scott Edelman responds:
You're correct that Return of the King had the highest clean streak of any Oscar-nominated film to date. It tied other films in the total number of Oscars, but those films lost in a few categories on the way to their records.
Best,
Scott
s many of you know, I'm now the editor of a small press that has published a variety of fiction and nonfiction, including science fiction. While I've written many a letter in this column bemoaning the state of SF publishing, not in my most pessimistic moment did I think it was this bad.
Called up and talked to a once-famous science-fiction writer and editor, now 72 and bedridden with diabetes. I treated him with the utmost respect he well deserved, but it was as if who he had been had died years ago. My company had published five of his novels and combined they sell less than 100 copies a year. Is this the whimper sf goes out with?
Got a call from one of Gene Roddenberry's writers of classic Star Trek. He and his son had written a novel and he wants me to publish it. I agreed to read it and have. It's not that's it's bad or that I don't like it. Publishing is not a quality, but a selling, business and whether I like something or not means little, but the manuscript read like young-adult SF from 20 years ago for an audience that now gets its SF from TV, film and videogames.
Needless to say, if this guy is calling me, he and his boy are at trail's end. (Heard from a publisher/producer friend. He got the same manuscript and rejected it two years ago!)
Don't get me wrong. I'm not giving up. Science fiction is better and stronger than those responsible for driving it into the ground. If the darkest hour is just before dawn, than SF's bright new day will soon be upon us. If not, I'm going to leave my light on anyway.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
