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 very interested in the "Lab Notes" [column] concerning the movie The Day After Tomorrow ("Global Giggling"). I especially like the explanation of how the Atlantic Conveyer works. However, Wil only talks about the carbon we are pumping into our atmosphere. I worry just as much about the deforestation going on worldwide. Without abundant tree growth, the Earth loses part of its ability to deal with the carbon, and the warming is accelerated. In addition, we are damaging one of the Earth's lungs in the process, and probably lowering the oxygen count. I've also read that the current rise in temperature is doing harm to the algae in the oceans, the other lung. We may not be headed for an ice age, but current trends do not bode well for our future.
Tim Carter
isileth(at)aol.com
il McCarthy's recent column, "Global Giggling," got off to a good start by dissing the wacky science behind the The Day After Tomorrow and giving an overview of Gulf Stream mechanics. Then it went weird. Greens, he claimed, should just let nature take its course and stop worrying about climate change. If they're serious, "they should all refuse medical treatment and die at the age of 35."
That left me scratching my head. I'm guessing he's talking about those greens who advocate better fuel efficiency standards and more research into emission clean-up technologies and alternative energy. Yes, pure Luddites, each and every one of them.
The truth is, McCarthy is setting up a straw-man argument—he's misrepresenting a particular viewpoint to make it easier for him to tear down. This is a common fallacy made when your own argument is weak, like his view that global warming will be good for the environment, outlined in another column, "Global Warming, Hurrah!" He claims global warming will lead to healthier oceans, more rainfall, and we would even be able to grow wheat in the Arctic and Antarctic, forget about all those polar bears and penguins.
The arguments in that column look suspiciously like those put out by the Greening Earth Society, a think-tank funded by oil and gas companies that attempts to discredit legitimate climate research (unlike most columnists, McCarthy doesn't attribute his sources). Never mind the concerns from scientists about the drying up of arid areas such as the American West, the rise in extreme weather events, or the effect global warming may have on species in already stressed ecosystems, including those in the oceans.
Don't get me wrong, McCarthy makes some valid points about Earth's climate history. But he cherry picks among those facts that back up his own beliefs instead of drawing conclusions based on the science available. It's very appropriate his column appears on a science-fiction Web site, since global warming is a complex topic that deserves better treatment than he has given it here.
Walt Williams
wjw_ohio(at)hotmail.com
Columnist Wil McCarthy responds:
We've heard similar complaints about my biotechnology reports, and the answer is yes, we here at Science Fiction Weekly are all on the take. Since oil and drug companies have more money than their opponents, they're naturally the ones we shill for. The weakness of our arguments stems from the vast quantities of crack we smoke at breakfast.
Interestingly, the equation of "Green" and "Luddite" is Mr. Williams' strawman argument, not mine. Energy-efficiency makes engineering, economic and medical sense, and has never been dissed in these pages. My point, perhaps poorly expressed, is that if climate stability is the goal, then cutting pollution is the least of our worries. By itself, an expensive 7 percent solution like the Kyoto protocol will not affect the many natural sources of climate change; far more bang-for-buck can be achieved through deliberate and aggressive climate intervention, both global and regional. Does anyone really doubt this is possible?
Mr. Carter's letter addresses this point as well, although I suspect in a warmer world the restoration of Antarctica's ancient forests would create a huge carbon sink. But yes, the planting and cutting of forests is one of the countless ways to control our atmosphere's temperature and gas balance. If people are really interested and not just feigning indignation, I'd be delighted to run the numbers in a future "Lab Notes," showing all work and citing sources in the scholarly way. Be careful what you wish for, though; the general rule in publishing is that every equation or footnote reduces the audience by 50 percent.
Best,
Wil
y wife handed me a sale flyer from a national retail chain today that offered not one, but three HDTV monitors at "deep discount prices." A year ago, I would have been surprised to see even one. Armed with that information, as well as the knowledge that TNT recently lit up a digital signal, I managed to overcome my natural apathy and write this letter.
OK, I'll admit I'm an early HDTV adopter, and gadget-monger in general. My point is that if Costco, Sears, Wal-Mart and other general retail outlets are selling HD sets, and "mainstream" broadcasters are lighting up HD signals, isn't it about time that SCI FI did the same? I don't
claim any knowledge of [SCI FI's] demographics, but I suspect that some correlation could be found between technology spending and the SF genre.
Here's the recipe for getting me and those like me to spend more time with the SCI FI channel:
(1) Offer a variety of well-produced, quality programming in HD. (This includes advertising, of course.)
(2) Thin out the B-grade horror movies, mutant critter flicks and "non-reality" shows with, I don't know, something else? Fifties and '60's SF can't be all that expensive and would certainly be less offensive. How about a SF talk/news show? Finding the right host might be a
challenge, but I'll bet you're up to it.
Thanks for listening.
Jim Barber
jim(at)sonicfocus.com
erhaps Raleigh [Moreno] ("Film Haters Should Hit the Books") is a semi-new reader and hasn't read any of my other letters. One of my last ones made the exact point she's making. Mostly.
I told someone to get over it, too—"But my point is this—I was disappointed by these movie failures of properties I enjoy, but I can hardly consider any of them to be 'slaps in the face' ("Only Anime Can Save Heinlein") or barely concealed hawking for a parent company when reviewed ("Dawn Remake Is Nothing But Dead"). I didn't like them, end of story. I'm never going to watch them again, and I'm not likely to watch something by the same producers—but that's where it ends."
But Van Helsing isn't the same—it's a re-imagining, but what we have is crud. Decent speculative fiction needs to make sense. Van Helsing didn't. Maybe I was a little too subtle in that letter, because I also wanted to get across that when a bad re-imagining comes out, I always end up with a little more affection for the originals.
And as for the assumption that I, myself, am a movie-only fanboy—sorry, false. In the last six months, I've read Luficer's Hammer, The Wildcard series edited by George Martin, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, Dandelion Wine, re-read Enders Game, re-read The Forever War, and several non-fiction and non-SF items. So that assumption falls flat.
It is with only mild offense that I take Raleigh's letter, and her implicit assumption that what's new on the movie screen is good, regardless. If we're handed a cruddy story, full of holes and contrivances that don't make sense in the established conventions of a particular genre, we have to acknowledge that it's bad, and not kowtow to the Hollywood machine.
I noted that horror flicks don't normally have to make sense, but it helps. This one makes horror only in that the names of the characters were in other horror stories. So, not really being horror, it is required to make sense. It didn't. This was an adventure flick, and if you changed names and time periods, it would make slightly more sense, but there would still be holes. It was too frenetic, far too fast-paced, and had too many "I'll explain it when you need it" moments. All of which pointed to poor writing.
I am not a fanboy.
But I do require quality.
Adrian J. Hunter
josephusz(at)rocketmail.com
nce upon a time when we were young, or younger, or much younger, a gate was opened that ushered us into the wonderful world of science fiction and fantasy and un-realities that enthralled and enlightened us. Do you remember who opened the "genre gate" for you?
For many it was Gene Roddenberry or Rod Serling, George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, J.R.R. Tolkien or J.K. Rowling. With the changing times, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury and company have been "given the gate" by TV and film technology, but it could be said that their spirits, or at least their influence, has helped oil the hinges.
Half a century ago, with the birth of TV, Captain Video, Tom Corbett and assorted space rangers appeared on the tube, but none of them pulled me into another world. That task was performed not by a hero, but by a unique individual known as John Zackerle (later Zackerley) who was neither handsome nor strong, brave or heroic—not a role model or even a good example and
certainly not a father figure for any "normal" child exposed to him.
"Zack," the "cool ghoul," came on, exclusively in the New York City area, looking like a cross between Count Dracula and the Phantom of the Opera, living in an underground crypt beneath Grand Central Station with his wife Isabel, whom we never saw except for the stake sticking up from her body in a coffin and his son Gasport, dwelling inside a moth-eaten bag hanging on the cardboard brick wall. Talk about a '50s "family show,"—this one was weirder beyond words making Zack a cult figure way ahead of his time.
Those times are long gone and the original tapes of the shows were taped over and over again and gone forever, but what if a tech breakthrough could being back "Zack" in his full glory? Add colorization and CGI to cover up the cheapness and the cheesiness, wouldn't that be the comeback of all time?
For many years, I wanted to believe so, but fact is, Zack would not be the same because I'm no longer that nine-year-old he opened the gate for. My argument is not that Zack was high-quality "sci-fi entertainment," but that he showed me the way into the SF life. I don't want to go back to the beginning; Zack gave me expectations of what SF could be and that made me believe that the original, the weird and the bizarre would become gates for others in the future.
It is with deep frustration that I read letters in this column hailing the return of Doctor Who or Blake's 7 or wishing for the continuation of Babylon 5 or demanding yet another Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea or another trip through the Time Tunnel. Not that these shows were great or garbage, but that they served their purpose in opening the gates for so many of you. Didn't they show you that so much more was possible? Didn't they give you hope and inspiration that greater things were in store?
Thank you, John Zackerley, for changing my life. Who you and I were so long ago are long gone and there is no going back. But there is a remembering of what used to be and a dream of what could be. Zack gave me both and I'll never, ever forget him.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
have recently come to consider science fiction a religion of sorts. Just as astronomy, ever since the mapping of the stars, has always influenced religion in one way or another, I believe that science fiction can be, in its own right, a religion for this millennium. We once believed that Earth was at the centre of the universe. Now what if our home planet was situated on the edge of the universe (if there is such a thing)? That would have certainly affected the religious viewpoints of Earth history. We may have looked out onto the rest of the "known" universe and perceived ourselves as being on the highest plain of existence. Of course, there would also be whatever would be on the other side of our cosmic scope: Some other universe, for example, just as Zeta Minor (in Doctor Who's "Planet of Evil") was the boundary between our universe and an antithesis universe of anti-matter. And there is the Star Trek episode: "Bread & Circuses" which expressed that if there is only one infinite God who has created all planets, all galaxies, all universes throughout infinity, then we must believe that all religions everywhere share a common basis somewhere.
I agree that science fiction has become a manner of religion in recent years. Trekkers would agree. And the points you made, Barbara ("SF Success is a Matter of Faith"), are very admirable. I suppose that the mystery of all religious routes throughout the universe is one of the infinitude of mysteries that keeps existence worth existing in. Amen.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
s I read all the complaint letters about the state of sci-fi the last few months, I am struck by a number of factors. Which I will touch on in my letter ...
First off, I am old enough to remember seeing one episode of the original Star Trek on NBC, and that Jonny Quest with the pterodactyl and the robot spy, Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea and Time Tunnel and Ron Ely's Tarzan also stick out in my mind. These are 1st- to 3rd-grade memories so they are Fuzzy To Be Sure, but I remember watching these on Sundays at Gramma's, usually with my cousin.
As I approached junior high school, you really couldn't find much that was new and different. I was really one of those kids that became acquainted with all the great '60s shows in after-school reruns. And the Star Trek Club which met at the local library ... and they had a real and lasting effect on my future. I am a computer engineer today, thanks in part to those shows I grew up on. They fostered my interest in science, computers and art!
The main thing that I recall about the '70s and '80s is that, with a few notable exceptions (Battlestar Galactica and Planet of the Apes), is that TV was pretty much a wasteland for these sorts of shows ... most making it only a few episodes. Starlost, Logan's Run, Earth 2—just to name a few.
In the '90s, this really started to turn around ... ST:TNG, DS9, Babylon 5, X-Files and Farscape revitalized genre TV. But today, we are looking at a situation, where, thanks to things like reality TV and the advent of TIVO ... genre programming is in real jeopardy. In a few years, TV is likely to have no new sci-fi programs coming out.
This is a true shame—because I watched this year as the most extraordinary thing happened. My son, who rarely takes an interest in anything that's not sports related, has taken a real liking to Enterprise. He watched all season long the quest to save Earth, and caught many of the ones we have on tape. He's asking all the big questions about the finale. "What happened, Dad? Did they really save Earth? Why are they back in time?" All those things ... and I have watched his interest in science go up this year from nil to being able to tell me things about the Mars probes, and what Vulcanism is—he even asked if that is where they got the name Vulcan ... And he hope's that he will get a chance to be an astronaut one day. Something he thought was dumb last year.
While these shows may be formulaic for some—there is a whole new generation of kids and young adults for whom these ideas are new, and I want my kid to grow up with "Faith in His Heart," and the idea that "he can do anything."
For any producers of new shows based on popular franchises who may read this, I gotta tell you, the fanbase is there for you, old and young. But you have got to include those elements that made the series so cool to start off with. That means, both Dr. Smith and a really cool robot both have to be in there. The Cybermen and the Daleks both have to be in there. And the metal Cylons, have got to be there, as well. If not, you are running the risk of alienating the fanbase. And to be real honest, in these days where .2 percent makes a difference in whether or not your show is successful, you guys are better off spending a few extra bucks, because you just can't run that risk. This trend to pick and choose what we can afford is not a good idea for TV.
For the long term, fans who have lost some of their faith in these shows, I say keep the faith, and really support your favorites, because our input really does make a difference. And while changes sometimes seem slow in coming, if nothing else, this past season of Enterprise has shown that the producers are willing to pull out all the stops, to give us a kickin' show. In terms of both acting and special effects.
To the suits, I say ignore the fanbase at your peril. After all, we are the customers. And like all good consumers, we will consider the products your advertisers are selling. And we will do our part, and tune in.
Which is exactly what I plan to do this fall with a little bit bigger boy. I hope that one day he grows to be a man who knows that he can "reach for any star," and passes that onto the next generation!
Mickey Goins
rockitscience(at)cox.net
must say I am fascinated by James Stewart's comments on Enterprise ("Enterprise Is a Business First"), especially the part in which he rants about how "the ship is always in eminent danger of being destroyed, yet miraculously holds together. Is there something special about stenciling the word Enterprise on a ship which allows it to survive when every other ship is destroyed? The captain is always in a life or death situation, but it's always the red shirts who die. ..."
And the fascinating part is he mentions his love of the original series which had these very same problems.
Isn't it funny that how we don't like something we nitpick it to death instead of trying to understand the real reasons for our dislike.
Andres Garcia
andres(at)verot.com
have to agree with James Stewart's letter ("Enterprise Is a Business First"). With the alien Nazi hovering over Archer, I have to say this is the legacy that [producers Rick] Berman and [Brannon] Braga want us to remember? A retread of "Pattern's of Force"?
I can't believe there were no ideas in their Star Trek plot database they couldn't come up with.
I'm just surprised Scott Bakula isn't protesting this profound dip in the writing quality.
I enjoyed the episode right until the last five minutes ... that's where I have a problem.
You can say it's only a TV show; however this ending is a slap in the face to those who wrote in to save it. What happened to the intelligent stories we were going to see the federation's birth?
B. Lloyd
[address withheld by request]
Back to the top.
