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.
look at the current state of television and am seeing it turn into a house of cards. Intelligent, creative shows (Firefly, Angel, Wonderfalls, etc.) get canceled before their time. Horrible, cheap, talentless shows (all reality TV, including American Idol) go on and on in multiple incarnations. Network TV is fast losing ratings to cable TV and its innovative new programming (Dead Zone, Monk, Nip/Tuck, The Shield, The Sopranos, etc.) and programming schedules. DVRs (TiVO-like devices) are about to hit the market through cable companies, expanding from less than two million units to tens of millions of commercial-skipping buttons, sending advertisers running (20 percent or greater cuts in TV advertising in the next few years alone by the big brands) to magazines and the Internet.
While I expect the industry to adapt, in the near term, I fear that drops in advertising dollars will translate into less money for the hour-long scripted shows, of all genres, and produce even more disgusting variations on "celebrity surreal race for the fear idol."
So I wonder if there is any hope? Out of the ashes of what was the amazing Firefly will soar Serenity, a feature length film. And the dust that will become Angel in three weeks may yet resurrect in the Fall as a series of TV movies. DVD sales helped breath life into the Firefly movie and the return of The Family Guy in new episodes (I want more Futurama, too, by the way). A (longshot) rumor is also floating that a movie based on The WB's Roswell may be in the works. Alone
these might seem like desperate attempts to save the shows we love, but I am hoping they are part of a trend that might make genre TV more fiscally feasible for the networks and less stressful on fans worried about cancellations.
To use an analogy, I love reading books in the various Star Trek series—The Next Generation and Voyager mostly. I can pick up one of these books anytime and immediately feel at home with what's going on. In fact, the book doesn't even have be in any chronological order. It could be one from years ago or the latest one to hit shelves. I already
know the characters and their histories, the ships, species and settings. All I really need is, what adventure are we going on this time?
This is where I see genre TV going. The series morphing into a series of movies. Rather than 24 episodes a season, maybe it's six or eight two-hour movies. They become events that draw bigger ratings and premium paying sponsors to succeed financially. Artistically, the product may actually improve as writers have a bigger canvass, and even budget, to work with, plus more time to polish their work. They could even get bigger stars as guests because the scope of the projects are bigger.
And I want to be clear on one thing: This is not what the SCI FI Channel has broadcast with it's SCI FI Pictures "monster-of-the-week-restocking-the-film-vault-for-the-return-of-MST3K" movies we've been subjected to for the past year or two (Dinocrock, Sabretooth, Snakehead, Terminal Error, and many more).
This is a means to produce and sustain loved genre shows with loyal fanbases. And it gives the fans a reasonable expectation that the adventures will continue, without the "Should I watch this show? Or is it just going to get canceled in four weeks?" psychology that is becoming prevalent. It would certainly be a different schedule to get used to, but with the way networks having been swapping shows around and pre-empting constantly, it's a wonder we can find anything as it is.
I believe we're in for a rough ride, but if Joss Whedon is successful with his projects, I think we'll see more creative development and programming of this type. Actually, now that I think about, isn't that what the British TV is like?
Never give up! Never surrender!
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
elevision hates sci-fi as a rule. They treat it as something to humor those wacky "fans" with. If Fox had set out to destroy Firefly, they couldn't have done a better job.
Now I hope Universal earns a billion dollars on the movie.
Now and Again was tanked (unfinished) by CBS—after promising to give it a full season. (And then they wonder why fans stay away.) They would rather offer it to Navy Ken and Jarhead Barbie on JAG.
Networks would rather cater to the lowest common etc., etc. ... with reality shows. And as long as folks lap up the scum, [the networks] will keep cashing in.
Meanwhile, things look bad for there to ever be a sci-fi show on [any of] the major networks—fans won't watch only to have the shows die after a couple of episodes and leave all the stories up in the air.
Cool idea for a new sci-fi show: future reality show where contestants are offered 10 million dollars in a 50/50 life-or-death challenge. It would beat Survivor by a mile.
Nancy Myers
crowswork(at)yahoo.com
hile Kevin Ahearn is right about the first man in space (Futurama), I think he missed a small point in the Enterprise opening montage.
We're being shown various versions of ships named Enterprise. From the very beginning of the U.S. up to the shuttle trainer, our naval fleets have always had a vessel named Enterprise.
Victoria Luke
druid(at)zianet.com
cott Edelman's editorial ("The Times They Are A-Changin'") on changes in the field of SF was, as always, interesting and insightful. But he failed to mention another interesting question: What the heck was Karen Joy Fowler's short story, "What I Didn't See," doing on the Nebula ballot in the first place? While an interesting and well-written story (as one would expect from a writer of Fowler's caliber), it was neither science fiction nor fantasy. The story didn't even contain the nebulous "fantastic elements" that seem to be enough to get a story classed as fantasy these days. The only link with the field that I could discern was that it was published under Ellen Datlow's aegis. Edelman says that "readers will recognize quality SF whether it is presented to them on paper or with pixels," but it seems that, in fact, many readers can't tell for themselves whether a story is science fiction or fantasy, or just a good red herring.
Ann Miller Jordan
amjordan(at)gte.net
cott Edelman's editorial ("The Times They Are A-Changin'") on "two earthquakes" rumbling "through the short-story side of the science-fiction field last week" stuck to the facts, but missed the much bigger picture as if he could not see the universe for the stars.
Ellen Datlow, SCI FICTION's "too well-mannered" editor deserves praise for buying the short story and novella which won Nebulas, but while it "seemed to" Edelman that the Internet has assumed dominance in the SF short-story market because of the new technology, he failed to mention the motive behind the medium: money. Online SF fans can read SCI FICTION for free while Ms. Datlow pays more for stories than any [other] SF magazine.
Asimov's, Analog, and F&SF, while they may be "legendary" in SF lore, at the peak of their circulation, were second-tier fiction magazines. It could be argued that the source of the best SF short stories in the last half century was Playboy, which burst onto the SF scene in June of 1957 with the publication of George Langelaan's "The Fly." The Saturday Evening Post also published a number of terrific SF stories.
The Post and, of course, Omni, are long gone, and the surviving SF magazines are shadows of what they used to be. Blame the Internet or the collapsing SF universe?
Say what you will about the "legendary" SF mags, they served to separate the wheat from the chaff, allowing persevering writers to work with skilled editors and launch successful SF careers, but with the rise of the 'net has come a parade of ill-prepared wannabes whose only qualifications are monthly fees paid for their Websites—"SF magazines" complete with
"editors-in-chief."
While there are a few exceptions, again and again I have visited sites featuring SF & fantasy short stories that are painful to partake. It's not that the "writers" and "editors" can't create science fiction or fantasy—they can't produce readable English! Unlike the crude fanzines which grew up and matured in the shadow of the pulps, the Internet gives these ineptly run enterprises, seemingly without standards, the appearance of equality and their contributors the idea that posting their work online makes them "writers."
Edelman points out that SF "is always in a state of flux." As these sites proliferate and mag sales continue to dwindle, is the future of SF short-storytelling in a "state of sucks?"
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
odd Behrmann made an excellent point in his letter "Anime Needn't Be Toned Down." Anime as an artform has been largely edited and snipped for the U.S broadcast audience. Save for sales of DVD and video tapes, it is not common to find unedited anime treasures on television. But Todd left out an important caveat concerning anime. Just because it is anime and it is shown readily on Japanese television for almost all to watch, the majority of anime is largely created for adults. Its themes, language, marketing and broadcasting times are often targeted for adults, with childrens' anime being much more comical, similar in maturity level to American cartoons and broadcasting in prime children's viewing slots.
The culture of America's televiewing versus the Japanese plays a big difference here. What anime is usually seen on television in the States is not typically "childrens" anime in Japan. The storylines that appeal to the U.S. audience the most are mostly titles for mature audiences and are often direct-to-video or theatrical releases. Thus it gets edited for content as per our standards. The realization that animation is a medium enjoyed by adults as much as children in the U.S. is just becoming more of a consideration in animation production here. Even now, we can see more cartoons being produced in the States that have material that can appeal to a broad age range. Shows like Roughnecks: Starship Troopers Chronicles and Justice League have even taken on a hard, dramatic approach to storytelling, eschewing the kiddy and comical storylines that made fare like Flintstones and Johnny Bravo popular.
I would like to think that one day, the powers that be realize American television could use more mature animated series in the mainstream. Perhaps one day we will have broadcast anime, uncut and in primetime. I for one would love to see what a series like Gundam Seed or Wolf's Rain unedited could do against a series like C.S.I. or Law & Order. But I know it will take time, there will have to be more compelling animated stories made by important American entertainment moguls, and more risk. I guess for now, all we can do is wait and be patient.
Making live-action renditions of anime classics seems noble. This, however, may be a harder sell than bringing more uncut anime and adult oriented animation to U.S. primetime. I think the appeal of anime goes beyond the stories, characters and perhaps the worlds created. I think the artistic merit of the animators and designers plays the biggest part to why anime remains so special and why more anime stories are not simply made or remade into live-action movies. CGI offers us some great advances in film, but I don't know if that is a reason to make live-action knock offs of anime. Looking at the past efforts to bring "anime to life," we have a very poor (and even scary) track record. I think this issue is kind of like making movies from video games. Oftentimes the original form is best without the "flesh-and-blood" treatment.
James Evans
[Email withheald by request]
n the past I have criticized some of the actresses suggested for the new Wonder Woman ("Trinity Is Worthy of Wonder") movie without providing one that I think would be worthy. How about Famke Janssen, that lovely Swedish brunette who graces every movie she is in? She is certainly tall enough and has a sci-fi following, having played Jean Grey in both X-Men flicks.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal(at)Hotmail.com
ou are right to be concerned, Scott ("Star Trek Should Not Go Dark"), that there may not be enough good ideas for the science-fiction genre at this point in our history. Peter Jackson's adaptation for J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (which finally earned its much-deserved Academy and Spacey Awards) is one agreeable exception. I think that Gollum is an exquisite new villain for the genre. And even with the disappointing conclusion to The Matrix trilogy, I agree that Agent Smith is still effective as one of the best villains of this decade. My list of worthy contenders for some of the best new science-fiction films or shows include Tru Calling (for which I am looking forward to this week's two-hour season finale), I, Robot (yet another valued moral tale about the responsibilities of artificial intelligence and their coexistence with us) and next year's new Doctor Who.
There is still a lot of flack about Star Trek's (and Enterprises's) survival in this century. The wise concept behind this prequel for Gene Roddenberry's legacy did have its promise when it first materialized. But I believe that the low points for Enterprise can only encourage the powers that be to keep making their effort to make this latest installment of Trek better. I have had my share of complaints, including the "Congenitor" episode. But like all Trekkers, I agree that optimism is the key. A new big-screen adaptation for Enterprise may be plausible as I anticipate.
I am especially pleased that there may be a second X-Files movie. I agree that a better resolution for Chris Carter's brainchild is still owed to fans. And I also agree that Alien vs. Predator should prove to be one of the most incredible sequels for both franchises (especially for Predator whose only sequel prior bombed with critics and fans). Science-fiction fans should not give up hope. It is human nature to keep telling great and greater stories. And as the laws of the universe states, nature always finds a way.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
haven't been excited about a season finale in a long time, but I am still reveling in tonight's jam-packed Tru Calling. The mythology of the show, which has been weaving around the time-travel premise this last arc of episodes with Jason Priestly, has been outstanding. And the season finale brought it to a screaming crescendo, moving the mythology ahead several turns.
[Spoilers ahead.] Her mother as a previous time traveler, the killer of
her mother—which now may have been ordered by her father, an earlier "angel of death"—and Priestly as the current opposite to Tru are a rich and layered "reality." And it's very clear they have more to reveal—like an organization or society of some sort. And given her mother and father, they haven't ruled out sexual tension between Tru and Jack. With these additions, it makes you think about the philosophical issues—e.g., about the ripple effect of changes Tru makes—as well as wanting to know more. (And it's been quite some time since a show left me wanting to know more—Peter Benchley's Amazon, the television series, to be specific: How did those ancient Brits end up there?) Just when it needed to, Tru became so much more than saving the talking-dead person-of-the-week.
I like it, and it makes your think. That's often the kiss of death; I Iiked Century City for similar reasons. I don't trust Fox to recognize what a gem they have. We'll know in a few weeks.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
Back to the top.
