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.
hile I realize that the real reason behind Mr. Timmons' recent editorial letter ("Some Science Facts Stink") was an extended flatulence joke, he needs
to be more careful about his own science. The effect of greenhouse gases is not related to any effects on the ozone layer; ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons and the like are not generally listed as greenhouse gases, and the ozone layer's primary benefit is in the screening of damaging
ultraviolet radiation, which has almost no effect on temperature. Greenhouse gases tend to absorb re-radiation of infrared wavelengths from the ground, which traps heat in the atmosphere.
Unfortunately, his logic regarding the heating and cooling cycles of nature is also faulty. In both the long run and the short run, these heating/cooling cycles have been irregular, so irregular that even calling them "cycles" is stretching the definition. Recent data has suggested that these variations in world mean temperature have been affected by fluctuations in solar heat output, theoretically possible variations in the earth's orbit, volcanic activity, eruptions of stored methane and/or carbon dioxide from the bottoms of the oceans, and so on, and so on.
He accuses scientists of running off half-cocked on the issue of global warning without thinking things through and considering the obvious "fact" that we must be in a warming cycle because we had a past cooling cycle in the form the most recent ice age. Actually, there is some evidence, based on our current knowledge of thermal trends, that we should currently be in a
cooling cycle, contrary to current real temperature trends.
Scientists know quite well that changes in global temperature do not have only one cause, but they definitely know that we are within a heating trend that has appeared in the past few decades. They know that gradual increases in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (a much more important greenhouse gas than methane) over the past century or so, particularly since the 1940s because of the increase in the burning of fossil fuels, has a very, very strong correlation with the decades-long rise in global temperatures. They also know that the occasional few hot years do not mean we're in an accelerated period of heating any more than a couple of cold years in a row does not mean that we're not. The evidence has been gathered over decades, and like it or not, the evidence is there. The correlation with greenhouse gases is convincing. But some people refuse to believe it because they don't want to.
The spectacular public excesses of alarmists does not mean that there is no dangerous trend toward long-term global warming or that we cannot or need not try to reduce its effects. While the "science" in The Day After Tomorrow was escapist junk, the mass of evidence on global warming is not. Too many people tend to trivialize and oversimplify issues that they don't like. Global warming is too important an issue for junk "debunking."
Greg Crider
criderjg(at)bellsouth.net
have to take a few exceptions to Jeff Timmons letter ("Some Science Facts Stink") about global warming.
He claims: "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."
If Mr. Timmons has done the research he claims, he'd have heard of the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Guess, what? They aren't jumping up and down screaming the sky is falling, but they are indicating that global temperatures are increasing at a faster than expected rate.
Additionally, there is Dr. Charles David Keeling, professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, an expert on carbon and the environment. He created the Keeling Curve, a chart which shows the dramatic increase in global temperatures and the correlation with increased carbon-dioxide emissions.
Secondly, Mr. Timmons claims: "Now while we can do little to prevent bovine or canine flatulence, we can take steps to prevent that of our own species."
Methane emissions have increased much faster than carbon dioxide emissions over the last 150 years. The human population is now over 6 billion, about 5 billion more than 150 years ago. As humans, we have a thing for eating meat products from our flatulating bovine, porcine and avian friends. The level of methane produced from these animals could be reduced if humans changed their dietary habits. The number of cows, pigs and chickens in existence today goes way beyond their capacity for reproduction. We're farming them for food. Left to their own devices, the population of cattle, pigs and chickens would be drastically lower.
Additionally, it takes 9 tons of grain to grow one ton of meat. Imagine if humans would cut their animal consumption down to eating meat once a week? The demand for cattle/pigs/chickens would not be as necessary, and the addition of carbon absorbing plant life created by a neo-vegetarian diet would help reduce the methane emissions.
I will agree with his statement: "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."
However, I'd say there are things we can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's time we use science in a responsible and useful manner to create a better world for all of us. I'd say that's been one of the better lessons of science fiction for quite some time now.
Dave Graham
dgrhm(at)hotmail.com
n [regards to] Jeff Timmons' letter "Some Science Facts Stink"—he should get his science facts straight. Greenhouse gasses are those that trap the solar radiation that has been reflected from the surface of the planet. The solar radiation passes through to the surface and then is reflected at longer wavelengths, unable to pass out of
the atmosphere (just like a glass greenhouse). Methane is one of the most potent greenhouse gasses; the vast majority of biological production comes from termites. Cows, humans and even dogs have gotten a bum rap. The next potent greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. Care to guess where that comes from? By the way, the ozone layer only absorbs ultraviolet radiation, it has no role in the greenhouse effect.
S.R. Selby
cuddebak(at)yahoo.com
he apologetic Mike Hudspeth ("Kirk Still Outclasses Us All") said that he was not trying to bash what Barbara Goldstein ("Time Travel Consistently Tops Trek") had to say, but he'd "heard comments like hers far too often." I found it particularly interesting that while identifying the fact that our level of technology is not the equal of Kirk's era, he's missed that the line between what is science fiction and what is science fact, is becoming more blurred. Something that history has shown us is by design. My point being, technological advances, in
particularly those with military applications, are without doubt significantly more advanced than what's on public display, and always have been.
As for what is on display, the kind of thing we can all hold in our hands, do we even know the true capabilities? For example, Mike reminded us that current mobile phones—cell phones in the United Statues—can reach, at best, a short distance without a repeater station. But, there exists apparently documented use of cell phones, by the ill-fated passengers aboard the
civilian aircraft involved on 9/11. Calls which defy the known operating parameters of mobile phones. Nobody has yet produced a scientific explanation as to how that was possible. Yet, as Mike pointed out, about two years on from the tragic events, the technology appeared to have taken
a step back, when those caught in the New York blackout could not even manage a call out of the city!
Mike also said, "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." He may well understand what he's been told—what we've all been told—are the current specifications of public technology, but that's not accurate enough. Nor is it the true state of the art. Time and again, we have all seen proof positive that the very latest technology in use is at least 30 years ahead of what the public are familiar with. A classic example being the SR-71 Blackbird, which was actually designed in the late 1950's, and first flown in 1962. Ben Rich, an aeronautics genius who worked on the SR-71 with Kelly Johnson, and designed the F-117a
Stealth Fighter, told a friend shortly before he died, "We have things out in the desert that are 50 years ahead of anything you can imagine." So, while accepting that we are not, yet, on a technological par with Kirk's era, there's a very good chance we're much closer than Mike thinks.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
he most thought-provoking example of an extraterrestrial contact resembling a religion that I can think of would be the monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey (and its three sequels). As Dr. Heywood Floyd (Roy Scheider) suggested in 2010's closing dialogue, the monolith could be a shape for something that has no shape. Any great form of intelligence that has evolved beyond shape might seem religious in some way.
I have to admit that when I saw the ending to 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time, I had the theory that the "Star Child" (Dave Bowman's final metamorphosis), for the film's finale set beyond the laws of space and time, was paradoxically the life force behind the monolith. That may be plausible. The religious theme behind that may be that we are our own destinies, should we conquer our conflicts with artificial intelligence such as HAL, and that the orders of the universe will always have some way to assure each of our cosmic birthrights. The equally ambiguous ending to The Quiet Earth, involving Zac Hobson played fittingly by Bruno Lawrence, was also realistic with its establishing more questions than answers. I find those endings to be more satisfying to be perfectly honest. I think that they can be healthier for and more respectful toward the audience because they can allow us to imagine our own resolutions for these stories. And that always make great science fiction.
One religious concept I am fond of is that in the eyes of God we are all beautiful. This is why The Twilight Zone's "Eye of the Beholder" with its morally effective twist ending (thanks especially to Donna Douglas for her strong portrayal) is so acclaimed. The Sixth Sense is arguably the epitome of this subject matter. One thing that we can all agree on is that "freak" is probably the most hurtfully bigoted word to call someone. I do not believe in freaks. And Dr. Crowe helping Cole to realize that his power was a gift rather than a curse proved so. Because when God sees fit to bestow upon you such an important power, you must have a purpose for it.
John Coffey in The Green Mile may be a more conflicted concept. But we learn the same lesson for its equally sufficient twist ending. The lesson is that if we are born with a special power, be in Tru Davies' to relive a day and save a life or Buffy Summers' to defeat the evil undead, it is not because we ask for it. We must simply learn to embrace it with dignity and serenity. God always has a plan. Whether you call it religion or science fiction, and whether or not it is understood by you or others, we must have faith that the universe is unfolding as it should.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
fter reading Dan Jeanes' commentary on Michael Moore ("Fahrenheit Turns Up the Heat"), I have to ask: Is Fahrenheit 451 the temperature at which film burns?
Stephen Svecz's commentary ("Bradbury's Anger Needs Hypocrisy"), sums it up best by saying, "... 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." Michael Moore is two things: political activist and entertainer. As someone who has seen all his movies and read his books, there is subversive humor in his work. That includes titles to his work, let alone the headings of his chapters in his books. The title of his latest movie is only a title. What should offend you is not the cover, but the content inside. And although this is a sci-fi column, I do have to say that when looking at the sources that Michael uses; Fox News, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, the U.S. government's own publicly released documents, it's hard to argue that he uses false information, unless you feel you are being lied to by the media and the government.
Back off the soap box ... unless Fahrenheit 451 is copyrighted, Ray can't yell at Michael Moore, only himself.
Jonathan Grove
jgrove(at)weymouthdesign.com
he raging debate ("Fahrenheit Turns Up the Heat", "Bradbury's Anger Needs Hypocrisy") over Michael Moore's titling of his political documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 without "permission" from Ray Bradbury, the author of Fahrenheit 451, seems divided in two camps: those who understand that titles can not be copyrighted and that free speech knows no bounds and those who resent the "theft" of a classic title and all it has come to represent and exploiting it to enhance a film's agenda they may not agree with.
This is not about politics. Whether one is a staunch conservative or a flaming liberal is not the issue. Nor should this be personal. Love or hate Bradbury or Moore, one or the other or both, is your right and should not bias your judgment.
I, for one, admire Bradbury who has taken a number of stands against intolerance and ignorance, but I also love and respect him as the author who first opened that "genre gate" for me into the realm of fantasy and science fiction.
Was it really a half century ago that I got to leave home for the first time to attend a fancy sleep away camp for "underprivileged city kids?"
Every night in our tents, the counselors would read to us short stories. One entranced me to the point that I would switch tents every night, following the story around so that I could hear it again and again.
It was one of Bradbury's early classics. In his imagined future, the ruling class had burned all the great literature (Yes, a recurring Bradbury theme!) and an electronic genius and his machines had the perfect revenge.
Invited to the genius' luxurious mansion for a great feast, a la "The Masque of the Red Death," the pompous politicos were treated to the sight of their owns deaths as acted out by lifelike robots via stories by Edgar Allen Poe: "The Telltale Heart," "The Cask of Amontillado." Ape-like robots performed "The Murders in the Rue Morgue."
Of course, the politicos were being killed and robots were taking their places. And at the end, after the last one had been done away with, the house itself sank into the ground.
Bradbury titled his story "Usher Two."
There are those of you who may want to continue this argument of stolen titles, permissions and apologies. For me, Poe's raven said it best: "Nevermore."
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA(at)aol.com
ichael Moore is a jerk. Everyone with a sense of smell knows that. I don't know why Mr. Bradbury got so upset. When the public sees the title of what is bound to be a bad, pointless, unfunny and mostly fictionalized mockumentary they'll simply be reminded of Bradbury's thoughtful novel. Farenheit 451 will still be in print centuries after Michael Moore's crap, the trendy, warmed-over Marxism that fuels it, is forgotten. At the same time, Ray Bradbury should remember that the theme of his novel was anti-censorship. The firemen in his novel burn books and suppress free speech. That's not good. Never was and never will be. Free speech is a two-edged blade. It not only lets us know what people think, but it also lets us know who the real idiots are. Moore has a right to make his films and should be allowed to—after all, if he is silenced no one will never have the chance to know what a total jerk he really is.
Carl E. Thompson
carlt3050(at)msn.com
aving read Mr. Bradbury's scathing diatribe against Michael Moore, I just have this to say:
Mr. Bradbury, build a bridge and get over it.
Moore stole your title? Really? Since when is the word "fahrenheit" copyrighted? Is "9/11" copyrighted? So Fahrenheit 9/11 sounds a lot like Fahrenheit 451—so what? I don't suppose it occurred to you that maybe he was making a cultural reference, similar to The Stepford Wives by Ira Levin? I don't see Mr. Levin getting all bent out of shape when people talk about how Stepford something is. It's become cultural—even people who have never read his book or seen either film know what "Stepford wife" means. Maybe Mr. Moore was doing something similar?
Fahrenheit 451 is about political oppression, thought control and control of information. While not quite as ubiquitous as the Stepford Wives, there is still a cultural reference to saying something is like Fahrenheit 451. I know that when I first saw the title of Mr. Moore's film, I immediately flashed to Mr. Bradbury's book (and the film made from it), and felt I had an idea what Mr. Moore's film was going to be about—control of information and politics. Did I think they were going to be the same? No. Did I think they had any connection beyond a cultural reference? No. Did it make me want to go see Mr. Moore's film? No, but I did think it was a clever way of declaring the subject matter in a very succinct way.
I don't think Mr. Bradbury's status as a Grandmaster of Science Fiction is in any way endangered by Mr. Moore's play on words off a book title. In fact, Mr. Bradbury's work will probably be remembered long after Mr. Moore's films are just an entry in a database somewhere.
So, relax, Mr. Bradbury. Whining about how Moore "stole" your title just makes you look juvenile, and your body of work states otherwise.
Rachel Maley
rmaley(at)unmc.edu
saw this letter ("Dead Scheduling Kills Zone") and could do nothing but shake my head. There have been commercials for the Dead Zones as far back as April on USA, as well as other channels, even SCI FI (although those spots cited to refer to your local listings) and they have been very few in number.
However, I think the biggest point that should be made is that there is this thing called the Internet that allows us to find out information. Just by using Google, a person can learn everything they want to know about a show including when a show is returning from hiatus. As an avid fan of the Dead Zone myself, I watched in disappointment as the March return was pushed back to June and I knew about this in January. There is also a feature called favorites/bookmarks that a fan can save the "official" web site of a show or the network/cable station carrying the show. This allows a fan to come back later and follow up.
If someone is a fan and does not want a show to fail, they should take it upon themselves to find out when the show is on, not wait for some magical promo on a different channel to tell them. The only person to blame for missing a favorite show is yourself ... unless it ends up preempted, your power fails, or cable goes out ... even then, it's still probably your fault for not paying the bill.
Ray Burke
ray(at)3gees.com
Back to the top.
