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.
was hoping that Joss Whedon's Angel would have lasted on the air at least as long as its predecessor, Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Still. All in all, 5 years is not a bad run. One of the most interesting aspects of the show was that the characters that a fan of the show got attached to and hoped would be a part of the scenery forever did not enjoy that fate. Characters came and went and it was much a reflection of real life whereby the persons that we cherish in our lives may not always be there.
Like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel celebrated the fact that change was a part of life and stories were written whereby showing that there are not always easy answers and the fight between good and evil often takes place in gray areas. Sure, the show had hits and misses, but for my part, Joss Whedon and company produced work that they could be proud of.
Julian Gift
lira-b(at)tstt.net.tt
n the "Buffy" resolution on Angel ("Angel Lives in Buffy's Shadow", "Buffy Wasn't Rude to the Dudes", "Angel Resolved Buffy Badly"). ...
I didn't think Buffy knew they were there in Rome? Did I miss a scene? To me, it was as if Spike and Angel (knowing that the—or at least their end—was at hand, went seeking their past. (Plus a chance to revisit the little women, Darla and Dru.)
Once there, can you imagine Buffy not coming home with them if she realized they were in mortal (ha) danger.
More than Buffy, I think the episode was a "farewell" to Spike and Angel's century-long pissing contest (pardon the bad word) and the start of a beautiful—if possibly short-lived—friendship.
As for odd ... well, Andrew as a "ladies man?" I'd believe him as a VamPYEr Hunter first.
Nancy Myers
crowswork(at)yahoo.com
ormally, I agree with Michael Basil on a lot of points he brings up (Hugh Jackman Makes Van Wilder). Normally, I admire his well-written letters expressing thought out opinions on the state of the pursuit of SF (be it speculative fiction or science fiction).
But not today.
And I apologize ahead of time if I offend Michael, because I think he's a decent human being with a decent head on his shoulders.
But to say that Van Helsing was anything but a steaming pile of monkey vomit is just not accurate. From the Wolfman crawling on the walls (a motif Sommers seems unable to shed) to undead demon babies to unexplained hordes of knock-off ugnaughts, to the ludicrous plot twist of only a werewolf being capable of killing Dracula, this movie rates down in the basement with
the worst Troma produced films. And I like Troma!
So many things were twisted so far beyond recognition, it's like they were just making it up as they went along. Re-imaginings and re-inventions have finally, irrevocably, gone too far. I wanted my Dracula to be a detached, almost-as-emotionless-as-lifeless, regal being of supreme evil. Not Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face.
I have to admit, the wolfman transformations deserved a second look—but there were plot contrivances that simply made no sense. Horror flicks don't need to make sense, but it helps. Glaringly, the literal litters of "young" the brides had. If vampire young are born
dead—and we are specifically told they are—and if they are born hundreds at a time—and we are specifically told they are—they must have been very small, on the
order of millimeters. So if they're dead, how did they grow to these huge 2-foot across necrotic amniotic sacs? If we were to invoke fantasy or horror logic, we could say that they grew because they were otherworldly, but if they were otherwordly, why would they need the science of the Monster to bring them to "life?" Wouldn't a few sacrifices or a few gallons of virgin blood do the trick?
The amazing gadgets produced before the turn of the last century—I don't know, I resist period pieces that, except for the backgrounds and costumes, could be today.
This movie is one of the very few I have ever gotten so close to walking out of—and I paid 8 bucks for Starship Troopers.
If this is what keeps Transylvania on the moviemaking map, then throw it out there "where there be dragons!"
Sorry Mike, I just can't back ya up on this one. I'm hoping you were being sarcastic.
Adrian Hunter
josephusz(at)rocketmail.com
hat telemovie in which Famke Jannsen played Lady X was called Model By Day, which I neglected to mention ("Famke Would Be a Wonderful Woman").
In other news, I finally saw Hellboy and I must admit that it was an unusual success. Ron Perlman's first break into the sci-fi genre was his very convincing performance as a prehistoric man in Quest for Fire. Followed by some equally impressive performances (aided by many makeups) in Alien Resurrection, Blade II, Stephen King's Sleepwalkers, Star Trek Nemesis, The Island of Dr. Moreau and, of course, TV's Beauty and the Beast. But I agree with probably most fans that Hellboy is the crowning glory of Perlman's great career.
The sexy Selma Blair, as a leading lady for Perlman, is reminiscent of his Beauty and the Beast co-star: Linda Hamilton. And their blazing embrace at the finale of the film was agreeably romantic. Should there be a sequel
(as there probably will be), then I think that Hellboy starting a family somehow with his pyrokinetic sidekick would give this franchise more potential.
Hellboy is another startling contribution by the film industry's adaptation of comic-book classics. And we will soon see how Spider-Man 2 and Catwoman stand up as well to the test of time this year.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
wonder how much research actually went into this [game review of City of Heroes].
A defender could easily have a healing touch and be kickass with a long sword. A controller might be able to command magnetism and be superstrong.
Not sure what game you were playing, but it's not City of Heroes from Cryptic. Neither of these are possible.
What little "money" the game has is called influence, and it can be spent with nonplayer characters for temporary improvements in the character's powers.
Not to mention customizing the players powers for 7 levels with Enhancements which is a key point to the game.
In the end, however, characters can't build anything in Paragon City except their heroes, who never change visually. They can't rent apartments, buy cars or even trade for a new set of wings.
These will be in the first update according to the Dev's.
This is brilliant, because it opens up even the hardest parts of the world to relative newbies as long as they can find an experienced character to be their guide.
Sidekicking does not open content. Hazard zones are hard capped for the true level, not the sidekicked level.
Craig Fry
craigfry(at)mailsnare.net
our review of City of Heroes seems to be off of a two-month prior to release pamplet.
I think your reviewer, if he wants to give an accurate review, needs to spend some time actually playing the game.
Some issues are more a matter of taste. The "classes" of heroes was very incorrect.
There are some areas of overlap, however a hero's secondary powerset is less effective than his primary. So, for example, a Empathy Defenders heal is more effective than a Controllers Empathy (which is his secondary) heal.
There are also limits. A Defender, for example, can't use a broadsword (as the review indicates he can).
Also completely missed in the review was the great storyline of which I have never seen as well done in another MMO.
I would recommend you review your review and update it after some experience with the game.
Mark Hanson
hansonmark(at)comcast.net
Reviewer Eric Baker responds:
Persistent shared worldss are the hardest games to review, and reviewers of them are always going to be open to charges of "missing this" or "being wrong" about that. Many shooters can be finished in 10 hours, and most American RPGs can be completed in under 30. Thirty hours in a PSW is usually just getting started, because the designers hope to keep players signed up for years. At some point, the reviewer has to stop and report what he's seen, even if it seems incomplete to those who have pressed on.
To address some specific points raised: the one sentence in the review that gives samples of the classes' powers is dead wrong. It has been cut and replaced with an accurate one. I wrote that sentence without my notes on hand and then never changed it. I deeply regret that error.
Enhancements are no more the point of the game than is level-climbing or forming groups or advancing the game's "plot." There is no money in the game, and its economy, compared to most PSWs, isn't worthy of the name. This is a fact and, as the review says, it is a good and a bad thing.
The review isn't of the update; it hasn't been implemented.
The quoted sentence about sidekicking could have been much clearer and has been revised.
Storylines are a matter of taste. The end of the beta, mentioned in the review, was an exciting event; nothing during the time I played matched it.
Best,
Eric
just discovered your review of Expendable by James Alan Gardner. I wanted to take a moment to let you know that I couldn't disagree more with your assessment of this book. I didn't find it boring or low brow as you seem to indicate. I would like to quote a segment of your review:
It is perhaps the dumbest sociobiological explanation of any human activity I have ever encountered in a novel. Putting questions of Political Correctness aside, can you imagine the life expectancy of a government which deliberately and publicly assigns the handicapped to jobs they are unlikely to survive and which refuses these heroes any prosthetic surgery, and which allows them to be treated by their inferiors as despicably failed managers of spoiled identity when they are on duty? I cannot. And I refuse to try, Mr. Gardner.
Do you understand the word satire? In addition to this, your use of words such as autochthon and suzerainty among others, seems less intellectual and more like a jaded reviewer who amuses himself by beating his chest for his readers by trying to prove what an impressive vocabulary he has. Yours is the only negative review of this book that I have been able to find. Either you are the last bastion of writing excellence, or your personal dislike of this story has colored your judgment. Not all stories are for everyone.
Christopher Emge
cemge(at)sath.com
Columnist John Clute responds:
I was never satisfied with the wording of my 1997 review of James Alan Gardner's Expendable, and for that reason excluded it from a collection of pieces I published last year. I do still feel, however, that Gardner's premise, which seemed more like ill-founded sarcasm than a genuine satirical mirror of human folly, did fail some pretty basic intelligence tests. In
2004, I might read his novel differently, but then I might not—I sure do remember the flame of irritation I felt back then when I realized that an entire narrative was going to depend on a premise so lacking in legs.
Best,
John
[Editor's Note: John Clute has also addressed this review almost two years ago, in the Letters column of issue #277 of Science Fiction Weekly below the letter titled "Clute Column Called Expendable."]
egarding Kevin Ahearn's latest letter to Science Fiction Weekly ("SF Fans Are Out of Touch With SF") in the May 17 edition...
If I recall, one of Larry Niven's "laws" was that a writer should never defend his or her work to the readership. In blaming the fans for the "downfall" of science fiction, Ahearn is doing essentially this. It's not the fault of the producers of science fiction, Ahearn laments, as much as it's the fault of the consumers for being too dumb or religious (the two are apparently the same to Ahearn?) to know what is and is not "good science fiction."
Is it just me, or does this attitude smack of the same literary snobbery that most of us endured in high school and college? How many of us were forced to plow through dated yawners by Fitzgerald or Capote, while our instructors lifted their noses in ridicule at the sight of our science fiction and fantasy paperbacks we brought to class? Also, since when have religion and science fiction been mortal enemies? Some of science fiction's most memorable products have successfully blended science fiction and religion—the Star Wars saga comes to mind—to the delight of countless fans across the globe. If the success of God-centered fiction tells us anything, it's that the consumer appetite for fiction that compliments their existing faith is on the rise, and we can hardly fault writers, publishers and television producers for following wherever the mighty dollar leads.
If nothing else, the successes of religious fiction might be seen as a backlash against the unspoken science fiction rule that God and religion have no place in our future; a premise that is increasingly discredited as it seems the "progress" of the 21st century has made religion more appealing to the masses, not less. This is not a failure of the readership or viewers. On the contrary. This is a failure on the part of writers and producers to recognize that religion is a necessary and vital component of the human condition, and that reports of the demise of religion are, in the words of Samuel Clemens, greatly exaggerated.
As for Ahearn's strange segue into the topics of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, these are primarily political issues, and I fail to see how these might be connected in any way to the rise of religious fiction or the resurgence of religion in the lives of ordinary Americans. Suffice to say, I doubt religious thought of any kind was running through the heads of the soldiers committing the abuse, and speaking as a citizen-soldier myself, I take issue with anyone who wishes to indict the entire country based on the stupidity of an undisciplined few. Further more, it speaks well of our civilization that we are rightly shocked and horrified by Abu Ghraib, and that we are so quick to launch investigations aimed at righting the wrong, delivering justice to the guilty, and showing the world that, while America can and does make mistakes, America is mature enough to own up to those mistakes, apologize for them, and work very hard to set things right once the damage has been ascertained.
Brad R. Torgersen
brt(at)sub-odeon.com
he ubiquitous Kevin Ahearn asked if SF is over ("SF Fans Are Out of Touch With SF"). A view which he seemed to be basing on the facts that so many people in the U.S. are now functionally illiterate, and Paramount is due to cancel Enterprise. It's a very U.S.-centric and short-sighted viewpoint. SF literature, movies and television are all alive and well, in that great big thing called the world. Kevin can find it just outside the U.S. border. Harry Potter was written in Scotland. Nirvana's Children was written in Australia, by Ranulfo, who is Pilippino. The Land of Laughs was written by Jonathan Carroll, he's an American by birth, but he lives in Vienna. Similarly, Tin Tin is Belgian, and the most successful single product in SF TV history is British. Anyone heard of Dr. Who? Then there's the biggest SF movie of all time, Lord of the Rings, which was made in New Zealand, using an international cast. Tom Cruise not required.
Another question Kevin posed was, does a robot or a space alien have wisdom enough to counsel us? My response to that is, what does it matter if we don't have the wisdom to listen? At the present time, we're all trapped between forces of religious, nationalistic and political extremism. If a wise alien landed on the White House lawn, it would probably be in several hundred pieces! Unless, of course, it was mysteriously and implausibly consumed by fires which defied the known laws of physics. Now that is bad science fiction.
No SF enthusiast that I know is out of touch with the genre. Anyone can see that it is the big studios and publishers who are trying to force feed us a diet of Star Wars offal and Left Behind religious mumbo-jumbo. All we have to do to change their minds, is to stop buying the SF equivalent of junk food, and seek out the good stuff. If [editor] Scott [Edelman] doesn't mind a quick plug, for a non-profit website, there are many honest reviews for new SF, etc., each and every week on www.greenmanreview.com
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
Back to the top.
