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.
t seems that Michael Anthony Basil ("Animated Sci Fi Deserves Attention") has just realized in his letter about animated science fiction what I have known for quite a while. Quite simply, the only format with no limits is animation.
I realized this when I was first exposed to anime. Well, not when I was first exposed to anime, but when I first started liking it. For years, and with very low budgets, Japanese directors have been bringing the most amazing visions of science fiction and fantasy to both the big and small screens. They can do this simply because the animated format is limited only by the quality of the artwork and the imagination of the creators.
American animators have recently begun to add anime influences to a new generation of more action-oriented American cartoons, the best of which is arguably Samurai Jack, although the Powerpuff Girls and Teen Titans also are great examples.
I believe that the future of science fiction lies not only with CGI, which has limits in what it can convey, but also in animation.
Shane Stephenson
deckmaster84(at)hotmail.com
n reply to Kevin Ahearn's interesting letter ("Technology Is Flattening Our World")—he is right about early SF
writers not predicting that technology would become smaller and more accessible, and ultimately more useful. However he severely overestimates technology's ability to change the world. Like many, he seems to have fallen for the "Bill Gates Ideal" of a world unified and standardized by computers and the Internet. But this ideal is as much an empty gesture as communism's vision of a classless society. In the end, communism failed largely because its supporters saw it as an infallible and can't-go-wrong system that would bring the world together in harmony. But the collapse of the U.S.S.R. soon destroyed those pretensions.
Now here we are in the 21st century, and already people are putting an undue amount of faith in the Electronic Revolution. Yet they seem blissfully unaware that this revolution can actually be ended far more quickly and effortlessly than communism. Communism ended with a slow and painful whimper into economic stagnation. The Internet on the other hand can be killed simply by electricity shortage. Just look at what happened in New York last year when the lights went out. No one knew what to do or where to go. All this, because a power plant went down. New York was, temporarily, living in the pre-industrial era.
Another reason to be skeptical of the computer age, is the fact that most people in the world don't have one or even have one within reach. It may seem plausible, from a Western perspective, to think that computers are bringing us closer together. But try saying that in countries like Afghanistan or Somalia where only the richest of people have them. Not exactly a leveler there, ha. This could, though, be remedied if the the Third World countries became richer. But that is one big "IF." Well, let's just say I'm not confident that these countries will improve any time soon.
Any ideal which relies so heavily on electricity will always have a Sword of Damocles hanging over it, waiting for the right moment to slice through peoples aspirations and ways of life. Even more worrying is that as more people get electricity, the more likely it is to short out. I'm not
suggesting, by the way, that computers will never be a major part of our lives. Only a fool would suggest otherwise. What I am saying is: Don't treat it as a saviour of the world. Don't put all your eggs into one basket. Especially not a basket that can burn so quickly.
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10(at)hotmail.com
his is a response to Mr. Robe Connedi's letter "Skin Color Doesn't Matter." You are absolutely right, it doesn't matter—but when making a quality movie, acting talent does matter. Hollywood has made a habit of
changing characters gender or race, story plotlines, geography and anything that they didn't like. It pisses me off. I think that it disrespects the creators who poured their life's blood into their work and the faithful fans that have grown up with these characters/stories.
To deal with your specific problem, compromises sometimes have to be made—Michael Clarke Duncan became the kingpin not because he was black, but because he had the right body build—while some changes make no sense except to the producers—D.B. Sweeney as Terry Blake in Spawn. However, I really didn't mind these changes, because competent/exceptional actors portrayed the characters.
Ms. Knowles is a great singer, and she is very popular (which is why she is even being considered,
popular=money), but she is not by any stretch of the imagination a good actress. And as for honing her skills, movie producers cannot postpone a movie schedule to accommodate acting classes; they need someone who they know has the depth and range to portray the character. Mr. B. Cody's letter ("Superman Should Fly Without Beyonce") was well thought out, and
to the point, and he never accused anyone of being a racist. He, like countless of fans worldwide, just wants "his" characters to be brought to life by the best person available, not the most popular.
Dwhyte Hunter
rookie1170(at)yahoo.com
hould Enterprise get renewed? As an avid watcher of Star Trek all of my life, I have this to say: The only way I would continue watching Enterprise if it does gets renewed is if they really get rid of this whole Xindi plot (and I mean really get rid of it, make it have never existed by some twist of time travel), and getting rid of this Temporal Cold War stupidity, and getting back to what we thought this "prequel" would be about—slowly forming the Federation and the original meetings with all those species that we came to love and hate. Even the wars that we heard were fought in these time periods (Klingon War for example). There are plenty of plots and adventures in pre-original series history that can be dealt with intelligently and creatively without having to make up a whole different pre-history of the Star Trek universe. Either get with the formula that really works and find your real Star Trek fans again, instead of alienating half of them, or kill it now, while we still have the chance to repair the damage done.
I am starting to think of Enterprise as the Battlestar Galactica: 1980 of the Star Trek universe. Feeling like it is better off totally forgotten and wishing that they never did it.
I do believe that Enterprise is salvageable, but only if they step up and admit that they made a big mistake in changing the pre-history of this universe that we have all come to love, and start giving this crew the adventures that they deserve to have, the ones that will truly begin to show a shape for a future that is literally already written. If [Rick] Berman and his "creative staff" can't be creative without making brand new major stuff that none of us ever heard about in the "future" stories and messing up the future that we know and love, then they never should have started this series in the first place. They should have just continued into the future with another series taking place after Voyager.
Berman and his people have conditioned themselves so thoroughly to not listen to the critics of sci-fi and the networks that they are ignoring everyone outside of their personal circle. They are making these episodes in a total isolation bubble and not hearing those who are true fans of Star Trek telling them that the reason that we don't like what they are doing is that they are f*!#ing (pardon the french) up the Star Trek reality as we know it and we just can't take it anymore. They are busy patting themselves on the back for another "great and creative" episode while we are shouting with all of our might, "Stop it before I never watch again!" Ask Activision, they know what I'm talking about.
Well, that's my opinion and I know I am not the only one that thinks this way. If it really can't be fixed, kill it before it destroys all that we have come to love!
Chris Jaros
Slayer_Solo(at)hotmail.com
s much as I enjoy watching reruns of Star Trek: The Next Generation on Spike TV, I'm growing weary of watching the same "uncut" two-part episodes on a rotating basis every Friday night. While some of the episodes are truly good, the series only aired a handful of two-parters during its run.
I'd think it would be interesting to throw some "sequel" episodes into the mix as well. Certain stories, like "Datalore" and "Silicon Avatar," or "Elementary, Dear Data" and "Ship in a Bottle," or even "The Battle" and "Bloodlines" fit well together as episodes that build on one another.
Jeff Zeiber
jzeiber(at)hotmail.com
im Stanley Robinson, the noted science fiction writer, contributed an excellent essay to last week's NY Times on Mars and its influence on him and his writing. Along the way, he gave a brief history of the Red Planet's role in the genre, from Wells' War of the Worlds and Burroughs' John Carter series to his own Martian trilogy.
Was Robinson suggesting what new millennium wonders would inspire the next generation of science fiction writers? Such is wishful thinking. What science-fiction needs most in this new day and age is—READERS!
Paul Di Filippo gave Richard Morgan's Altered Carbon a glowing Science Fiction Weekly review and other reviewers have since confirmed his judgment, but sales were hardly stellar. The just-released sequel has come out in paperback because there are not enough SF hardcover buyers to justify a first-class edition. Moreover, the money that the author received (allowing him to leave teaching) came not from his publisher, but via the movie rights. Of course,
the hope is that with the release of the film, book sales will increase as a tie-in rather than an original work. In short, the diehard SF reader has been left out of the equation because there are so few of us left.
With John Carter and War of the Worlds, the Red Planet has once again appeared on the Hollywood radar screen. A world away, Spirit and Opportunity, the NASA rovers, may detect evidence that primitive life once existed on Mars. With a little more spirit and opportunity, and a lot more readers, there's a chance life could exist once again in science-fiction publishing.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
ver since Tom Baker's impending departure from the role of Doctor Who at the dawn of the '80s, there were quite a few rumors spreading that one of the Doctor's future incarnations would be female. The first woman to play the Doctor was Joanna Lumley in the Comic Relief special: Doctor Who—The Curse of Fatal Death in 1999. There are some fans would have been in favor of the idea of a female Doctor, including myself. There have even been some fan fiction stories, including the "Doctor Who—Starland" script I wrote for The United Whovians of Tucson fan club magazine, TARDIS Time Lore, eight years ago. Yet there are other fans who feel that the role of Doctor which was dominated by men for four decades would never be adaptable for an woman.
There have occasionally been other feminine sci-fi icons that have "regenerated" due to cast changes such as Lexx's Xev (Eva Haberman/Xenia Seeberg) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine's Dax (Terry Farrell/Nicole de Boer). And, of course, there is Romana who was originated by Mary Tamm for The Key To Time storyline and later played by Lalla Ward. I thought at the time that a possible spinoff series by the BBC featuring Romana with K-9 and the Tharils in E-Space, following her departure from Doctor Who in Warriors' Gate, might have been conceivable. Perhaps a spinoff of the next year's new Doctor Who further down the road with a Time Lady as the lead character is still reasonable. I for one would even consider Die Another Day's Rosamund Pike as a casting choice.
With all the American science-fiction heroines emerging on the television and cinema screens, who could resist what would probably be the crowning glory for arguably Britain's most abundant science-fiction reservoir? Fans will certainly be indebted to Joanna Lumley for finally opening the door.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
like a little "blue" humor as much as anyone. I regularly watch shows such as South Park and tune in late at night to watch Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network.
The other night, not too long after dinner, I switched on SCI FI and much to my surprise, Tripping the Rift was on in all its adult-oriented glory. I'm a firm believer that if you don't like something on the tube, just change the channel, but to see TTR on so early, when so many kids could be watching (and probably were), was shocking to say the least.
I have no problems with it being shown late in the evening, but let's keep it that way, shall we? It's a mediocre show at best, and having it on during primetime does the SCI FI Channel an injustice.
We can't rely on parents to always monitor what their kids watch. It's sad but true that, in this day and age, the TV is as much a babysitter as it is a tool for entertainment.
Dan Ware
DWare(at)state.nm.us
usually do not write in to letter pages, because I feel they only make the letter writer feel better without having any input on the problem you wish to address. I prefer voting with my eyeballs and watching less and less of a network or series. This, however, is an extreme case.
I watched an episode of [the SCI FI Channel's] new show, Tripping the Rift. Well, that's not exactly correct. I watched a total of 7 minutes of the show this past week. It is yet another example of the wisdom in programming [the SCI FI Channel has] shown over the last few years. Coming up with an episode where the story highlights a game called Mutilation Ball in which players dismember their opponents with a chainsaw was the lowest. This was not satire. This was not witty or clever. This was a crude and infantile example of poor taste and no imagination. This show, along with Scare Tactics, Mad Mad House, the thankfully short-lived Dream Team and Tremors: The Series, is one more example of the weak creative abilities being tapped for creating new shows on [the] network. This has been a trend I've witness on [the SCI FI Channel] for the past few years. The financing of these shows is the reason [SCI FI] couldn't renew better series such as The Invisible Man or Farscape. These two shows were not cost-effective and were canceled because SCI FI didn't market them and/or move them around in the weekly schedule. Therefore they lost viewers.
If Tripping the Rift is evidence of what this network is becoming, then anticipate losing me as a viewer of any of [SCI FI's] shows.
Gary Anderson
ga(at)plowshares.org
his letter is in response to "Tripping Creates Viewer Rift," written by Mary Johnson.
I have so often sat back and read readers complaints about sex on TV or religious views being trampled on, lowering the quality of television. I myself find agreement with some and reserve judgement on others, but must ask the pertinent question: Where's your remote? After all, people have been paid millions of dollars in an effort to make your TV watching as pleasurable as possible. Today we have more channels than we know what to do with. I can watch a program on how to make candy sculptures for 10 minutes, then skip over and watch a neighbor remodel his former friends' house. Then flip over and save the universe by traveling through a doughnut. (No offense to Stargate SG-1. Love it myself) During every moment, I am secure in the knowledge that I hold the greatest invention on the planet. My remote control.
Watching a program week after week, then complaining about it does little more than prove you watch it. As for Tripping the Rift, I watch it and enjoy it for the humor in it. I am not looking to make a religious choice or even determine if Allah, God or Mother Nature even exist. You take what you want from it. It so happens Tripping the Rift has toned down from the original 5-minute Internet skit that was floating around for a few years. That's right, it's not new.
Evidently enough people enjoyed the Internet clip that it was commissioned for a half-hour program. If it lasts, time will tell. How can your voice be heard? Change the channel. Bottom line, if people are watching, it will stay.
Doug Robinson
koalad(at)satx.rr.com
Back to the top.
