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.
y now, it is clear that John Clute's hatred of anything even marginally to the right-of-center in science fiction, and of the editorial policies and philosophies of the late John W. Campbell in particular, has become a pathological obsession. As proof, I could point to virtually every entry in his Encyclopedia [of Science Fiction] and almost everything else he has ever written about the field.
Generally, his approach has been that of sneering condescension leavened with just enough spite and venom to convey an impression of moral and intellectual superiority in an individual of overweening intolerance. However, he apparently feels that his approach has not succeeded in wiping Mr. Campbell's memory from the face of science fiction and remaking the field in his own image, as he has now resorted to the lowest form of debate, that of name-calling. In his review of Heinlein's For Us, the Living, he inelegantly and inaccurately (to say nothing of inarticulately) refers to Mr. Campbell as "a redneck bluenose," seemingly by way of blaming him for the fact that Heinlein's early published work did not contain the radical libertarian themes seen in this earlier, unpublished work.
His implication seems to be that Heinlein and science fiction would have been better off could he have done so without Mr. Campbell's prudish interference. Not only does this betray an abysmal ignorance of 20th century American cultural history, but it ignores the fact that Heinlein did this very thing in his later novels, with a resounding lack of success. These works failed as both science fiction and literature, as they would have done could they have been published by anyone (much less Mr. Campbell) in the 1940s.
To castigate Mr. Campbell for being a man of his time, and for encouraging Heinlein's strengths (characterization, plotting, the sense of a "lived-in" future) and discouraging his weaknesses (the aforesaid radicalism), reveals Mr. Clute to be as uninformed about good editorial practice as he is about the development of American science fiction. I shudder to think what science fiction would have become had Mr. Clute, instead of Mr. Campbell, assumed the editorship of Astounding in 1938.
But all this aside, the essential question is as follows: Would Mr. Clute have had the personal courage to call the formidable Mr. Campbell "a redneck bluenose" to his face? Somehow, I think not. And thereby, I rest my case.
Carl B. Glover
Carl.Glover(at)med.va.gov
Columnist John Clute responds:
I'm afraid I find Carl Glover's response to my Heinlein piece a bit confusing—but let me try, anyway, briefly, to clear away a bit of the noise.
Last point first: With regard to Carl Glover's rhetorical assumption that I am a physical coward, someone who would quail at bearding the "formidable" John W. Campbell, let me assure him that I do not say things in print that I would be afraid to utter directly to those addressed. I might add that, had Campbell himself been bearded a little more frequently by the authors whose careers he attempted to enfeoff, then the decline of Astounding after 1950, and his own descent into the cesspool of Dianetics, might have been averted through some exposure to
reality.
Regarding Carl Glover's overall argument, insofar as I could unravel it, I do seem to detect one underlying confusion, though as I am not myself an American, I may simply be misunderstanding the subtletites of American polical thinking as Carl Glover articulates them. My review of the Heinlein book did not directly engage on his political/economic speculations, which were certainly not right-wing, and which I found pretty uninteresting; what I focused my attention upon, rather, was his libertarian ideas about personal privacy, freedom, his assertion that any human was absolutely entitled to do what he or she wished short of inflicting ascertainable damage upon other people. Where I guess I fail to understand the subtleties of American political thinking is in my failure to understand how these assertions in favor of private freedom could be understood to anything but quintessentially and honorably right-wing—one of the central tenets of conservative argument about the due relationship between human beings and governments being, after all, I had always thought, that the latter are not entitled to meddle in private lives. I myself am exceedingly "radical" about the autonomy of private lives, as was Robert A. Heinlein. In this, I am as right-wing as he ever was. The only leftie here seems to be Carl Glover.
I don't know if SF would have been better if Heinlein and his colleagues had been free to range over the full range of human behavior options in the Astounding of 1940 (that is, of course, before he got sick of Campbell and abandoned ship). I think it's quite possible that the
narrow cultural focus Campbell espoused—indeed, I think, insisted upon—might have been seminal in the creation of the coherent, potent SF we remember from the 1940s. But what I do know is "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch": that there was a cost: that by excluding so much of human behavior from the pages of Astounding and other magazines, American SF as a subculture made a cartoon of the genome.
About what we have become, for good and for ill, neither John W. Campbell, nor that portion of American SF written to his dictates, had a clue.
Best,
John
ately, everywhere I go on the Web, I seem to be seeing the calls of doomsayers crying out that the end of SF is nigh. Sales are down, Hollywood might have one or two very good SF movies each year if we are lucky (but that's a subject for another letter) and the short story is floundering in
inch deep water. To those that sense the end, I say you are wrong.
Sure, SF is slowing down a bit, but it is no longer a young man. Rather, it has reached its middle age. It has become a little bit too lazy, too fat and too self-assured. It is not quite as idealistic as it once was, nor does it seem to remember exactly what it is. I have to put the brunt of this on writers, editors and publishers, though readers themselves have not helped matters much either. It seems these days that every writer wants to write, every editor wants to find and every publisher wants to print the great SF novel. In the process, SF as a genre seems to have forgotten its youth. It is rare to find novels as original, exciting, entertaining and
thought-provoking today as were the works of Robert Heinlein or Isaac Asimov. And publishers? They always want series. If they can get three books instead of one, they will jump on it. Now I don't mind a good series, but even in a series each book can be a standalone novel. Take Alan Dean Foster's Flinx novels for example. They can be read in any order without any loss of understanding.
And where is the idealism? Or the warnings of what is to come? Even adventure has taken a back seat to "characterization" and "plot development." I just so happen to run a small online bookstore and do you know what I sell most of? Old stuff! I'm talking pre-'70s SF. Space opera.
Socioligical SF warning of events to come if we don't change our ways now. Adventure. All the stuff that seems to have become rare in the last few years. And the books are thin. They are not these 500+ page tomes. Unfortunately, it seems, the industry has decided that if 150 to 200 pages are good, then 350 to 500 pages are better. The two best books I've read recently are Heinlein's Methuselah's Children and James Blish's And All the Stars a Stage, both of which come in at around 150 pages. No fluff, no padding, no dull spots I had to work through. Just a good, well-told story that is no longer than it needs to be. And as readers, we accept these length mandates from the publishers.
What happened to the glory days of SF when it did not take itself so seriously, when telling a story was more important than being technically accurate or going in depth into a character's psyche. While these things add depth to the story, they often overwhelm every other aspect of the tale. It is my assertion that SF needs to remember from whence it came and it will incur a much needed resurgence.
No, SF is not dying. It is just out of shape and needs to start exercising again like it did in the Golden Age.
Jeff Timmons
pywrit(at)pywrit.com
remember zipping home from school to watch the latest installment of Star Blazers to find out what's happened to that amazing flying submarine "this" week. Recently, my local public library was given 18 episodes of my old favorite and I borrowed the first three and bought a bag of popcorn. Alas, the program didn't match my memory! The animation is not very good in modern terms. And once they got their super blaster online, it had to be used once an episode, it seems. (That got tiresome after awhile.) But the overall storyline is very, very good. Since this is an era of remakes, I vote that this old series should be redone. Keep the storyline, keep the basic "look," but bring the animation up to speed. I think the Yamamoto can fly again, if it looked better. It could also use a new title that is more reflective of what it is. Perhaps the Japanese title made more sense, the English one doesn't.
Speaking of good anime, I also borrowed They Were 11. This is a stand-alone adventure worthy of being remade into a live-action film. It concerns 10 students who don't know each other on the last part of an exhaustive college exam. They have to go to an old starship and get it going again. But things aren't that easy, 11 are counted in the air lock instead of 10. Who is the 11th? Why is he/she there? What should they do next? Arguments ensue, since nobody knows who the "spare" is except for the true interloper and he/she isn't talking! And the old ship is full of all kinds of nasty surprises that keeps the "crew" busy trying to survive long enough to graduate! This is fine story telling that needs to be brought off the library shelf and onto the big screen.
Larry Ray
cookies5(at)sbcglobal.net
he Alien franchise has become one of the most successful and endurable science-fiction epics in film history. As if Alien vs. Predator is not going to set even higher standards, Ridley Scott's re-release of Alien is probably the film serial's best shot in this new century. The director's cut, now on DVD, is a splendid retelling of the juggernaut destined to forever remind us that in space, no one can hear you scream. I was particularly interested by the newly added scene where Ripley discovers what has become of the bodies of Dallas and Brett (they were converted into living fertilizer for more Alien eggs, which should explain how Ripley knew this much about the Aliens in the first sequel). This scene was supposedly cut by Scott for the sake of climatic suspense. But I agree that restoring it to the film now was a good idea.
Alien remains a classic. And Sigourney Weaver is eternally unforgettable as arguably the genre's most popular heroine. This supports my theory that re-releases of great science-fiction films from Blade Runner to the original Star Wars trilogy and E.T.: The Extraterrestrial are probably more effective than remakes in the preservation of such a legacy. Of course, whether or not Steven Spielberg's approaching remake of The War of the Worlds contradicts this remains to be seen.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
eading Sash Scott's comments ("Sci-Fi Shouldn't Be About Formula") made me wish that reality was not subject to the indifference effect. Yes, there are amateur writers, semi-pros, etc., who could write fantastic Enterprise scripts. But the brutal truth is, it doesn't matter.
If Sash were to spend the next year sifting through submissions, letting people vote online, and preparing a folder of the best 22 scripts, nobody would be willing to seriously consider them. Under no circumstances whatsoever, would Paramount, or any of the other big production studio, touch anyone who isn't represented by an agent. Even then, the lucky writer would stand more chance if he or she were based in the U.S. The rest of the world's writers, who studios are more than happy to sell product to, might as well be in the Delta Quadrant. Just about the only area where another nation's writers are looked upon favorably, is comics. Even then, it's just the British writers who get a bite of the cake.
Many, but not all, of those in charge of studios are way too busy churning out sub-standard product to waste time seriously trawling for fresh talent. Even if it made economic sense, the situation would not be open to change. For example, if fans came up with the fabled season full of great scripts mentioned above, and said to Paramount, Mutant Enemy or any other outfit, that they could have this work, for free, on the single condition that episodes which generated a respectable rating or feedback would, in turn, guarantee the writer paid work—still, it would be no dice. Nobody, even those like J. Michael Straczynski who know some fans can write, would be willing to turn over the first page. Until someone with a combination of brains, balls and bucks is willing to take that chance, all any of us this side of the screen can do, is amuse ourselves
with versions of what might be.
Speaking of which, I had this nightmare where Wesley Crusher is grabbed by the Romulans, brainwashed, and sent back to the 1970's. His mission is to ensure that humanity wastes so much of the future grappling with technology that almost works. In the final scene, we see him as a middle-aged man ... and it's Bill Gates.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
here seems to be one clear way of reviving the Star Trek franchise—it's time to go on "silent running" and let the franchise's dilithium crystals reenergize for 15 to 20 years. With all the ideas floating around on how to "revive" Star Trek: Enterprise and the franchise itself ("Enterprise Must Kill a Character" and "Sci-Fi Shouldn't Be About Formula," for example), they all seem to miss the component that will get the warp engines running at peak efficiency.
Don't get me wrong. The ideas put forth are good ones: Creating a recurring "nemesis" for Archer, such a Shran; having an organization fight for control of space and space doctrine in opposition to the establishment of Starfleet; sequels or prequels involving Capt. Sulu, Capt. Riker, etc. But, (you knew the "but" was coming), trying to start up yet another series like that is just like using up the last photon torpedo in a last ditch effort to save the crew and it being "phased" by an outside entity. Although I would personally like to see one final movie of the The Next Generation cast, using Q as a main adversary, we know it won't happen and it's better that it didn't...
Paramount is a money-making entity, regardless of having Star Trek or not. Marina Sirtis' indication that their will not be another TNG-based movie is a good indication that the franchise is losing power and is caught in a vortex. Maybe after a long hiatus, new people can breathe life into the Star Trek Universe and we can be wowed and fascinated with new adventures.
In the meantime, I'll be joining Mr. Moore's adventures on Galactica. ...
Jonathan Grove
jgrove(at)weymouthdesign.com
irst of all, I'm a fan of the original 1978 Dawn of the Dead and I dug the "reimagining." I won't use the term "remake" because the script here is a completely different take of the Dead mythos established by George Romeo and his crew from the Dead trilogy. Make no mistake, campers. This Dead is not your daddy's version. There's no space probe from Venus with some strange radiation, but an unexplained 21st century raising of the recent dead and the only obvious references to the original trilogy are a few sight gags most of the fans will pick up in an instant. (Who here noticed the WGON 'copter going like a bat out of Hell or the diner that got wiped out by the tanker truck with a few "unauthorized passengers" along for the ride?) It may be different players and a different state, but it's still zombies against the living and nobody's getting out of Dodge whole ... or alive for that matter.
Second, I would like to give praise to the rewriters who helped iron out some of the more glaring hiccups from James Gunn's principal script. For those of you not in the know, there were a few ideas that Mr. Gunn suggested that was eventually (and thankfully) tossed aside due to budgetary constraints such as the infamous "zombie dog pack" sequence mentioned in a few notable horror magazines such as Fangoria and Britain's Shivers. It was fortunate that Scott Frank and Michael Tolkin gave some assistance and polish to the final script. I know that beginning scripts are not polished gems from the start and a lot of work is done to cut out the dead wood and add on fresh meat, but apparently Mr. Gunn is still having trouble with his Scooby Speak, so let's give a nice shout out to Mr. Frank and Mr. Tolkin for their help. (Read Britain's SFX from March 2003. This will confirm my information.)
Now, I don't know what got Mr. Voisin ("Dawn Remake Is Nothing But Dead") bugged over this reinterpretation of a neo-classical horror film, but in all honesty, I too was uneasy about the picture when I first heard about it. It's one thing for a first time director to dare to take the reigns of any major motion picture, let alone a project like Dawn, but learning that the guy who gutted Scooby Doo (and seems to have done it again) was doing the script had me praying for a quick and nasty death for the project. Thankfully, I had the good sense to keep an open mind and read the scoops on Dawn from various sources as the production progressed and the enthusiasm for the picture by Mr. Zack Synder and the cast and crew. (Hey, who knew Sarah Polley was a closet zombie fiend? Maybe she'll be lucky enough to score a role for Dead Reckoning, the proposed fourth film of Romeo's Dead saga. (From the looks of things thus far, I feel she has the chops for it.) My reluctance over the film was lessened and by the time of its premiere, I was wholeheartedly psyched for some good-old-fashioned zombie action ... and Mr. Snyder delivered with gusto! Unlike Mr. Voisin, I was willing to put aside my prejudgments and let the film speak for itself. I wouldn't say it was a "A-" type of picture (I'd give it a "B+" since the ending was a little obvious and I had expected something of a real shocker akin to the original Night of the Living Dead like having the boat taken out by a trigger-happy Coast Guard cutter, but that's just me talking.), but as far as recent fare like House of the Dead go, Dawns's not without its charms and no doubt it'll clean-up nicely on DVD sellers. (And I expect a killer commentary from Ms. Polley about her zombie fetish. I like a girl who's open about her guilty cinema pleasures.)
Mr. Voisin is entitled to his opinion and no doubt there are those Deadheads who view this version of Dawn as something short of burning Old Glory or calling Elizabeth II an old man in drag, but clearly the man had an agenda when he bought his ticket and his vent is very much biased. After all, I can named a few zombie films that are a whole lot worse than what he believed Mr. Gunn and Mr. Snyder had done to Dawn. (Anyone remember Return of the Living Dead Part II, or Zombie 3 or even the ill-advised remixing of the original Night with new scenes? I'll admit to liking Tom Savini's 1990 vision of Night, but even I have limits.) So he has a complaint about this version of Dawn. Fine. Nobody was going to be satisfied and any filmmaker trying to make a picture to please everyone is clearly a complete madman. But, it would be nice if the argument against the picture, indeed any picture of note regardless of genre, wasn't expressed like he just sat there in the dark tapping his feet and wishing the end credits would come. At least the review in question (and other similarly positive reviews from other publications like Entertainment Weekly and The New York Times) bothered to balance the good with the bad and gave a fair appraisal. Mr. Gilchrist gave his most informed opinion and gave Dawn the review it deserved. That is what a good reviewer does, not fall back on cliched terms and unfocused indignation. The very tone of Mr. Voisin's letter was that of a rabid fanboy who would take offense of anyone who would dare to re-envision and perhaps revive a genre that's been literally dead for too long. If a fan of the original Dawn has a beef about the new version, then by all means express it ... but with a clear head and with some informed opinions, please. No one likes a rant that just blows off steam and ends up going nowhere. God knows there's enough of that going around on the Net as it is.
As for Mr. Snyder, I look forward to his future projects. I would say the same about Mr. Gunn, but then I'd be letting loose like Mr. Voisin in a torrent of aimless complaints and mostly justified anger. (Course, I haven't forgiven Mr. Gunn for what he did to Scooby Doo. Some projects, unlike Dawn, are best left to those who know the work .. or perhaps even on the drawing board.)
James K. Chambliss
WeirdArchives(at)prodigy.net
Back to the top.
