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 a fan of USA Network's The Dead Zone. I was eagerly awaiting the start of the upcoming new season-three episodes. Then I reached out my hand and touched my television remote, and had a disturbing vision of things past, present and future, as the series' main character Johnny Smith does.
My vision was that a devoted fan, who had gone out of his way to watch every past episode, had missed the first two episodes of the third season because he simply didn't notice that USA Networks had started showing them two weeks ago (because he doesn't watch any other shows on that otherwise lackluster network).
I watch various SCI FI Channel shows, and park the remote there briefly during channel surfing to see what's on, so I'm exposed to their ad streams quite a bit. During May and early June, I saw the same ads for SCI FI's Saturday night lineup of shows literally dozens of times. I never
saw one mention of Dead Zone's new season on USA's sister channel.
I could tell you when the season finale of Tripping the Rift, Enterprise, Angel and The Shield were, weeks or even months ahead of time, because I saw ads for these plastered all over the cable spectrum. Because I saw commercials repeatedly, well in advance of the airings, I can tell you that the new season of Nip/Tuck starts on FX next Tuesday, and that Salem's Lot is on TNT this coming weekend. The latter show was even reviewed in this week's Science Fiction Weekly web page—so why wasn't a "heads up!" there for the new Dead Zone's as well, back in May ?
It doesn't take Johnny Smith to predict that if even the loyalest of viewers don't know when this show comes on anymore, Dead Zone's ratings will become comatose, and lead to another
premature end of a good series worth watching.
Jeffrey A. Johnson
number6(at)hiwaay.net
h my god! Noooooo! Not Tom Cruise! Or Leo! Iron Man, Tony Stark, must be played by Cary Elwes! Period! Anyone in their right mind wouldn't make this movie without him.
As for the guy that thinks Vin Diesel should be cast as Ben Grimm in the Fantastic Four movie, you sir, are insane. Vin Diesel should be cast in Toilet: The movie. This guy is a tur... terrible actor. Blah, Blah, Riddick... yeah, yeah, whatever sparky, sit down.
I could see Patrick Warburton as Superman for sure, or even as Mr. Fantastic, although that might be a stretch (hurr, hurr), but Brendan Fraser? Why? That's just ridiculous.
Finally, what overpaid Hollywood dipstick cast Ahhhhnold as Mr. Freeze in that last flaming Batman movie? That was extremely poor casting. The obvious choice was Christopher Lloyd! Something needs to be done to ensure Joel Schumaker never touches another Batman movie. Nipples on the Batsuit ... whatever, Nancy. Somebody cut that freak's brain out before he ruins anything else. Hey, Mr.Schlockmaker, FYI: Batman has been around since way before 1966 there, sizzle chest. Try 1939. Next time maybe you should take a little time out from Barbie's dreamhouse to do a little research, ya bone jockey!
p.s.: Excuse me Mr. Raimi, but do you have enough freakin' money yet? How's about blowin' the "spider webs" off of the Evil Dead series, huh? Sheesh! Don't hand me that box-office numbers garbage, everyone knows that those movies are classics. The iron is hot and Bruce [Campbell] is aging. Chop, chop, time's a wastin'.
James Dandy
[Email address withheld by request]
evin Ahearn's letter ("Bradbury's Claim Is Flammable") regarding Ray Bradbury and Michael Moore ("Bradbury Slams Moore") reeks of hot air, much like Michael Moore's films. What Mr. Moore did was a shame, but not a surprise considering the man. He's spent much of his career attacking people by using interesting film techniques and false information. Now, he takes a classic title from literature and bends it to sell his newest mock-umentary. The guy's a loon, and I find it quite funny (and a tad bit sad) that anyone would defend his obvious disregard for someone else's legacy.
Ray Bradbury, whatever his political affiliations, has always been a class act and gentleman, Mr. Moore has always been the complete opposite. Fortunately, while a film such as Moore's newest will fade with the memory of it's writer/director, the true classic with the name Fahrenheit will continue to be a classic.
Dan Jeanes
djeanes(at)stinsonmoheck.com
have to believe there was some sort of Swedish/English language barrier responsible for the report in Dagens Nyheter of Ray Bradbury asserting that Michael Moore "stole my title." ("Bradbury Slams Moore") First of all, is it even possible to copyright or own a title? I think Michael More could have called his film Gone with the Wind or The Naked and the Dead or Fahrenheit 451 for that matter.
But, on top of that, I was stunned to hear Ray Bradbury reportedly upset over Moore's allusion to Bradbury's book since Bradbury himself is a master of just such allusions. What would Bradbury say in his own defense over his own titles such as "When Elephants Last in the Dooryard Bloomed" (paraphrased from Walt Whitman); "The Golden Apples of the Sun" (quoted from Yeats, I think); "There Will Come Soft Rains" (a line from Sara Teasdale); "And the Moon be still as Bright" (Lord Byron); or "Something Wicked This Way Comes" (Shakespeare).
No reason he should say anything in his defense since there is nothing wrong with Bradbury's appropriations as there is nothing wrong with Michael Moore's. I am merely stunned to hear that a writer as fine as Bradbury who has made such effective use of literary allusion, quotation, pastiche and has had among others George Bernard Shaw, Thomas Wolfe and Hemingway as characters in his own stories could have had any problem with Michael Moore's making an allusion to Fahrenheit 451 which is, after all, a brilliant work about, among other things, thought control and political oppression.
Stephen Svecz
gumby(at)onecom.com
few weeks ago, you reviewed a new documentary, Finding the Future: A Science Fiction Conversation. The producer was generous enough to send me an advanced copy on DVD and, aside from being blown away by such a gracious act in this self-centered era—by a filmmaker, no less!—I have to say that, without question, this is the most intelligent, literate and, most importantly, respectful look at fandom I've ever seen in the media. Instead of the standard, "Let's sneer at the geeks" attitude we're forced to endure in everything from the local news, to lame Conan O'Brien jokes, and even the better-known documentary Trekkies, this film asks serious questions about the past, present and future of our favorite genre, from both fans and pros alike. If a few mundanes would sit down and watch, they might discover that "nerds" do indeed possess some intelligence beneath their Klingon foreheads!
Aside from the attributes I've already mentioned, this is also one of the most fun movies I've seen in years! Despite being severely handicapped, I attended cons regularly from 1982 to 1998, and they were some of the happiest days of my life. This movie brought it all back: the costumes, the panels, the filking, the impromptu debates in motel corridors, it was like an SF convention in my TV! I even saw some people whom I'd met in years past. When the final credits rolled, my eyes were stinging, because I never wanted it to end. In many ways, Finding the Future reminded me of something I might've seen on [the SCI FI Channel] in its glory days, back before a gang of know-nothing MBAs turned it into a dumping ground for Z-grade horror flicks, and sub-intelligent garbage like Mad Mad House and Tripping the Rift.
True, the editing in Finding the Future can be a bit choppy at times, the background music has a tendency to drown out the speakers, and I would've liked to have heard the opinions of fans other than those on the political left. But when one considers the condescending, almost mean-spirited coverage that fandom usually receives, this is no reason to complain.
Whether it's at a film festival, or its eventual release on DVD, see this movie! Afterwards, contact the producers and tell them what a great job they did. We owe them—big time.
Michael P. Murphy
mmurphy(at)globaldialog.com
know I'm going to sound like a real geek here, so I apologize right up front for what I am about to say, both in length and content.
I just have to cringe when I hear comments like [Barbara Goldstein's, "I understand how given our technology of today is ahead of Kirk's that it would be hard to hold Archer's time to less than what we have. Making it plausible to the Trek universe is the creative trick." ("Time Travel Consistently Tops Trek")]. Our technology is nowhere near that of Kirk's world. Everyone cites the cellphone as proof that we are so advanced. Come on, people! A cellphone can reach, at best, a short distance without a repeater station. When Kirk flipped his communicator open, he could talk, in real time, across a solar system. During the New York blackout last year, no one could use their advanced cellphones to call out of the city.
We aren't beaming around anywhere. Our spaceships are still little better than expensive one-offs. Forget medicine! We're witch doctors in comparison to McCoy. Our factory processes aren't capable of producing Treknology in quality or quantity. Our material sciences are far behind considering ourselves on par with Kirk's time. And don't get me started on how little we really know about the physics of the universe.
The only reason people are arrogant enough to think we are so technologically cool is that they really don't seem to understand real technology and how it works. People are so familiar with the concept of a communicator that they think it's old hat. If they would look closer at what the thing is actually doing and understand the problems of doing it, they would gain a greater understanding of where we really are technologically.
A cellphone needs repeater towers every so many hundreds of yards. That's why people get upset by having to see them everywhere. A communicator has a range that can reach a starship millions of miles away (see "Mudd's Women"). Radio signals take time, even at the speed of light, to get from the speaker to the listener (a concept touched upon by Christopher Pike in the very first episode). We've never seen any lag time on a communicator. Cellphone batteries give out at the most inopportune moments. Can you imagine trying to get off the constellation before it goes down the "planet killer" if your communicator suddenly gave out? ("Beam me up, Scotty. Scotty?! I can't hear you now!") A communicator can work right through solid rock (and did in several episodes). I lose my cellphone signal going through a traffic tunnel. In "Friday's Child," a communicator is used as a sonic weapon. Short of throwing one, I'd like to see a cellphone do something like that! Something as simple and basic as a communicator remains way out of our ability to construct. Even our most powerful communication equipment is practically stone age by comparison.
Maybe that's why our sciences are lacking in schools today. People ignorantly think we have "arrived" technologically. It's the mass delusion of "everything's already been invented." People are bored by stuff that's "good enough." Star Trek inspired me to become a designer because I wanted to see the eye candy I saw each week actually become real. We have a lot of neat stuff but we have a long way to go before we come close to Kirk's tech.
I know that wasn't the gist of what Ms. Goldstein wrote about. I'm not trying to bash her. I've just heard comments like hers far too often.
Mike Hudspeth
Mike.Hudspeth(at)TycoHealthcare.com
hat American company releases more science-fiction and fantasy titles annually than any other? Not Del Rey or TOR or HarperCollins or DAW. IUniverse brings out more new titles than all those "big publishers" put together and odds are you've never heard of, much less read, any of them.
Why not? Because iUniverse is an "author-funded" publisher, a so-called "vanity" press, which means that any wannabe author, regardless of skill or story (no pornography or racist material, please!), can have his or her manuscript turned into a "real" book, hardcover or paperback, complete with ISBN, copyright and Library of Congress number, for the right price.
That's right, boys and girls. If you've got a pile of paper and the bucks, you can be a genuine SF&F writer with a novel on your shelf to prove it!
That's a tad harsh and simplistic. Truth is, with fewer new titles being published every year, more and more aspiring writers are being rejected when just a decade ago, they might have gotten book deals which put money into their pockets instead of the reverse.
IUniverse (along with WePublish, FirstBooks and Hudson House) is essentially a printer, not a publisher. The company makes a profit by printing what they are paid to print. Sad to say, most manuscripts come to them riddled with typos and grammar gaffes, making the vast majority of the resulting books unprofessional and unreadable. Writer + Printer = The "90% of everything" Theodore Sturgeon called "crap."
Not to blame the "vanity" publisher. What's missing in this process is an editor. Don't confuse editor with proofreader. Professional editors expect "real" writers to submit manuscripts free of obvious spelling errors, typos and grammatical flaws because that's what "real" writers do. "Real" editors concentrate on storytelling and all that goes with it.
Can't get published by a "real" publisher, so you can't be a "real" writer? Be advised to find an editor before you lay out big bucks to have your novel or anthology printed by any "author-funded" company. Therein lies an SF&F challenge: how do you find the right editor?
Some things to watch out for:
1) Anyone who wants money just to "read" and "critique" your work is after a quick buck. Avoid.
2) Offers to "ghostwrite" for a set fee? No. Remember, you are the writer.
3) After reading your work, a "professional" gives you a price and a guarantee you'll get a "real" book deal? No. Professionals know better.
4) Praises your "masterpiece," and can't wait for your check to arrive to get started. Sorry, but if you were that good, you'd already have a publishing contract.
Printing, which is what "vanity" presses do, is not publishing. Publishing is about selling books. As SF&F, even by many name authors, is not selling, your only recourse may be to pay to have your work printed. So, if you are serious about your SF or F novel, get it right first, then best of luck with a "vanity" press.
But be prepared for disappointment. However good your novel may be, websites (such as Science Fiction Weekly), newspapers and SF&F magazines are reluctant to post or print reviews of "vanity" novels which have built a longstanding and unfortunately, deservedly, poor reputation. But one day, a gifted and determined individual who took the time, effort and discipline to write (and rewrite) a novel will break through and boldly go where no other "vanity"
novel has gone before.
Why not you?
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
eading the letters ("Day Lacks Reality of Physics", "The Earth Is Losing Its Lungs", "Lab Notes Numbers Are Pure Sci-Fi") and columns ("Global Giggling") of those responding to The Day After Tomorrow, I had a quirky sort of satori in which I realized that, just as a huge number of readers are getting all they'll ever know about religious history from The Da Vinci Code, a similar number are getting all they'll ever know about climatology from The Day After Tomorrow. What's worse, many such people will walk away believing that they now know everything necessary to make informed decisions about these topics. Those who come to such fictional works to be entertained and come away from them believing they've been informed represent a problem in democratic societies where voting and polling can influence real results in the form of legislation and regulation.
I assume that Mr. Williams ("Lab Notes Numbers Are Pure Sci-Fi") is sincere in recommending "drawing conclusions based on the science available" but there are some essential facts that should never be far from discussions about subjects such as global warming. The earth is a huge, self-regulating environment that has been functioning for billions of years, during which time it has experienced many global warmings and coolings, and it will experience many more in the future. We humans have been part of this process for a nearly incomprehensibly tiny part of the earth's history, and we have been keeping accurate records and scientific readings of this environment for a tiny part of our history. Those who talk confidently about global warming being a reality are talking through their hats, since they are speaking of a process that would require tens of thousands of years of data to truly understand and interpret the trends of the moment. Even if we are actually in a global warming trend (rather than a geologically temporary fluctuation), humans have no more to do with this one than they did with any of the others. We might as readily suggest that the dinosaurs were somehow to blame for the comet striking the earth. Wanting to make humans responsible for such a proposed climate trend is claiming an importance of humans' place in such a long term, dynamic system that looks suspiciously wishful.
Make no mistake. If we are in a global warming trend, it will eventually mean bad news for the status quo. The Day After Tomorrow's plot, indeed, its title, declaring that it will happen overnight is pure fantasy. But, if it is happening, we humans are neither causing it nor can we do anything to stop it. Rather than ego-boosting by claiming that we're the ones doing it or wringing our hands over life-style details, we would face the future far better by preparing for the changes, if we really believe they are coming.
John Kissinger
john.kissinger(at)alvernia.edu
ne of the great things about science fiction is that it stirs within many who read it an interest in science itself. An interest in science leads into a learning of thought that is rational, logical and empirical. We learn to look at the facts and make hypothetical assumptions based on the interpretation of those facts. Many of those facts are, quite literally, written in stone and cannot be changed by any force known to man. When a science-fiction writer alters or ignores a fact, it is literary license. When a scientist does the same thing it should be considered criminal. Unfortunately, many scientists do alter the meaning of facts or ignore known facts altogether in order to produce a desired reaction within the populace of the world.
A case in point is this:
I recently read an article on global warming, for example, which stated that it is a very real, very serious problem. Let me be the first to admit that global warming is real. I know. How do I know? Well, for several billion years now, the Earth has been in a cycle of warming and cooling. That is a fact. Another fact is that just a few millennia ago, the Earth suffered an
ice age. Therefore, we must now be in the upward, or warming, trend of that cycle. Thus, global warming does exist and it is part of the natural flow of our planet. Unfortunately, most scientists in this field seem to simply ignore the reality that the planet warms and cools and now are jumping, screaming and hollering that the sky is falling or, in this case, heating up.
Now, in every article about global warming, there are references to the "Greenhouse Effect." What, exactly, is the the "Greenhouse Effect?" Simply put, the greenhouse effect refers to the release of gasses into the atmosphere which, in turn, damage the ozone layer of said atmosphere which then allows a greater percentage of solar radiation to enter into the aforemention atmosphere thus warming the air and surface of the planet.
"But where do these gasses come from?" you ask. Let us take a look at one of the greatest culprits in this area of study—methane. I've read reports that claim up to 5 percent of all greenhouse gasses are methane. And the greatest known source of methane is animals. After much reading and years of my own observations, I have to conclude the worst animals for methane production are cows. Closely following are humans and dogs. I came to that conclusion after years of being surrounded by both and my own personal experience with the release of said fuel. Now while we can do little to prevent bovine or canine flatulence, we can take steps to provent that of our own species. Perhaps the first step would be to ban the ingestion of certain, well-known, flatulence-inducing compounds such as beans, broccoli and prunes. I admit, I like beans and broccoli (prunes is another matter altogether), yet I would willingly give these up if I could be assured that it would make the world a more comfortable place to live, not to mention better smelling. There are also a number of other vegetables and fruits to which biological methane production can be attributed. These plants, of course, should all be banned from ingestion and carry a hefty penalty and/or fine if one should be caught doing so.
This will not stop the human production of methane, but it should slow it. However, to achieve maximal results, we must take our actions to the next level. There is one product, readily available in most major grocery stores, that can further inhibit the production of methane: Beano. Yes, Beano. It contains an enzyme that, when added to food, breaks down certain proteins which would otherwise be broken down by bacteria in one's digestive tract and released as methane which is then released in the general atmosphere in form of flatulence.
While there is no absolute prevention of the production of greenhouse gasses within our sphere of influence, there are most certainly steps we can take to prevent it. So, next time you feel the need to "let 'er rip," just put a cork in it.
Just clearing the air,
Jeff Timmons
pywrit(at)pywrit.com
n every book in [the Harry Potter] series so far, children's lives are threatened by forces of evil, and every indication is that things will get worse before they get better. The first two movies captured the light and fluffy side of J.K. Rowling's books but downplayed the attempted murder of baby Harry and the successful murder of his parents. They were also overly long and poorly trimmed. That option is no longer available; books 3 to 5 cannot be made into a commercially accepted length without significant paring, and I thought the screenplay was by far the best at keeping the most important elements of its book. In books 4 and 5 (and if you haven't read them yet, sorry about the spoiler) [warning: spoilers follow!] people Harry cares for die; in Azkaban we learn of the horrors that are dementors and, what is worse, that the wizarding community can condemn an innocent man to Azkaban, and an innocent beast to die. This was the first movie in the series that captured the dark as well as the light side of Rowling's series, and Azkaban is the first movie in the series I am going to own. Michael Ryan ("Harry Potter Is Cuarón's Prisoner") must not have read all of Azkaban if he thinks that "the director put his own dark view into the third Potter installment." The darkness was there all along.
Richard Aronson
[address withheld by request]
egarding Michael Ryan's recent comments on Harry Potter and the Prisoner of
Azkaban ("Harry Potter Is Cuarón's Prisoner").
I have heard comments similar to his from just one other fan of the Potter films and books, so hopefully, his opinion is the minority.
We have to be realistic when it comes to the Potter franchise and where it's headed. As the actors are growing up, so are the readers. Columbus gave us two nicely packaged movies with brilliant colors and wonderful special effects aimed at kiddies. Aside from different sets of crises, there is very little difference in the films.
Cuarón's purpose was to breathe fresh air into the franchise and take it a step beyond. He has done this masterfully, dwelling not on special effects, but on character development. The F/X are still there, but take a more subtle back seat to the story. The first movie was brilliant because of it's faithfulness to the text and the aforementioned packaging. However, the second movie was just more of the same, and falls far from the original.
Azkaban expands the Potter universe, and rightfully so. What's wrong with adding on to the sets we've seen in the previous films? In fact, I think Cuarón more accurately captures what Hogwarts and its surrounding grounds would be like.
As for faithfulness to the text ... As the books get larger, the amount that can appear on film shrinks too. Nothing from the main plotline was lost, so what's the problem? Get ready for more, too... Even though Cuarón won't be directing the fourth movie, it's going to have massive cuts. It's already been confirmed that the Dursley's scene isn't even in the script. The only way you're going to see a movie faithful to the next now, is to do a mini-series on TV.
Nitpickers need to relax and enjoy the film, not worrying about why the Slytherins are sitting at a different table this year. The movie flows just fine, and unlike most movies that have a "time" element, this one doesn't screw the logic up. It was even easy for my 7-year-old daughter to understand and enjoy.
Dan Ware
DWare(at)state.nm.us
Back to the top.
