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.
Editor's Note: Due to technical difficulties, many of the letters submitted by readers last week were never received by Science Fiction Weekly, and therefore we have to run an abbreviated Letters column in this issue.
n response to your readers comments about the Angel episode "The Girl in Question," which addressed the relationships of Spike and Angel with the Slayer ("Angel Resolved Buffy Badly"), I was also disappointed with the episode for many of the same reasons. In addition, I question the need for the episode
entirely. The Buffy issue had been addressed repeatedly over the years and for most Angel fans had thought (thankfully) to have been been put to rest. The current regrettable season has reemphasized the "spin-off" nature to the detriment of the show.
Angel always seemed to live in the shadow of the parent series. I felt that this was unfortunate, because in many ways, Angel was superior. Writing and acting always seemed [to be] at a higher level. The characters seemed less strident and more likable. Still, it lost none of the dark humor. It is truly unfortunate that the limited episodes left were used up by such a pointless exercise when some much is left for the core actors of the show both current and past.
Given that Ms. Gellar has been reluctant to revisit the role, the idea that a Buffy episode might cause more interest in rumored telemovies seems far-fetched. Rumors abound that there will be a cliffhanger of sorts as the series closes. If that is the case, I suspect that there will be even more disenchanted fans of the Angel/Buffy-verse. We can only wish that things will "be continued" in some new venue and the characters be have followed for years have their stories completed elsewhere. Can you say Faith the Vampire Slayer?
Doug Dale
ddale(at)coda-continuum.com
lthough I agree with some of Ms. Goldstein's comments ("Angel Resolved Buffy Badly") on the way Angel wrapped up the "Buffy question" (at least for the nonce), I think she was a little off-base with this comment:
And "Buffy" came across out of character. Sure, I know the actress wasn't available, but it was out of character not to say hello to people you know who are in town from halfway around the world. So, I came away with the feeling Buffy had drastically changed—and in a way I didn't like—which was alienating. Underneath this was poor writing.
I don't believe Buffy ever knew that Angel and Spike were in Italy. They saw her on the dance floor—from behind—but there's no evidence she knew they were there. They kept showing up at her apartment, but Andrew kept informing them that Buffy hadn't returned yet. If visitors stop by unannounced, one can hardly be counted rude for not being there to greet them.
David A. Young
drruser10(at)cfl.rr.com
as science fiction become passe in the 21st century? Has the once vibrant and vital genre become irrelevant in our times? With the plummeting sales of SF books and the imminent demise of Enterprise, the flagship of sci-fi TV, is science fiction as we know it, or think we know it ... over?
Has something else taken its place? Check the tube (Joan of Arcadia) and the bestseller lists (The Da Vinci Code and Left Behind) and you'll see that none other than God has stepped in to fill the void. Does religion now rule over science? Has the new millennium reverted to the Middle Ages?
The quest for truth in scripture or in fiction is best tested by reality, especially one we never imagined we'd ever have to face.
The revelations of American inhumanity in Iraq has forced us to re-examine not only our role in that chaotic country, but our national identity as well. How could this have happened? Would we have behaved any differently? Are we all like that?
Given the growing reliance on religion in supplying all the answers, is there one?
"It was God's Will," some theologists might say. "The Lord works in mysterious ways," others might chant. And there's always, "The Devil made them do it."
Such simplistic slogans do not hold up. Does science fiction give us any clue? Do we study Star Trek or Star Wars or Babylon 5 to guide us in these troubled times? Does a robot or a space alien have wisdom enough to counsel us? Does the truth lie in a distant galaxy or in a parallel universe?
At its zenith, science fiction probes the human condition where even the Bible and the Koran do not boldly go. Have we been led to believe that our military machine is a monster of our own creation and like Frankenstein's, has turned against us? In every man and woman is there both a Jekyll and a Hyde, and pressured beyond reason, will the latter dominate?
Shelley and Stevenson blessed us with the basic human canon of science fiction, but William Golding, who would win the Nobel Prize for literature, showed us in his signature short novel, Lord of the Flies, that a group of individuals, thrust totally unprepared into a savage environment, despite the best of intentions, can become savages themselves.
Has science fiction since lost its touch? Why don't they write them like they used to? It is not because science fiction is out of touch—it never has been and never will be—but because so many, and more than a few sci-fi fans, are out of touch with science fiction.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
dward Van Sloan, Peter Cushing, Laurence Olivier, Anthony Hopkins and Christopher Plummer have each made their marks as Van Helsing. But Hugh Jackman, with his portrayal of the acclaimed character in Stephen Sommers' new blockbuster, is the most ambitious. Kate Beckinsale has an ever better action-heroine role here than in Underworld. And the overwhelming action of this wild adventure combining the villainies of Count Dracula, Frankenstein, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde and werewolves (Jackman's Van Helsing becoming one) keeps Transylvania on the movie-making map. For anyone with the craving for the continuous reinventing of the genre, this one is a must-see.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
