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.
n the August 30th "Letters to the Editor," Alain Avakian ("SCI FI Should Broadcast in HD") complained that he couldn't watch Stargate SG-1 or Stargate Atlantis because the SCI FI Channel does not broadcast in high definition and he won't watch anything that isn't broadcast in HD because it looks "crappy."
Your loss, Alain. It has been forecast that most, if not all, cable and broadcast channels will be broadcasting in HD within a decade, but until this occurs, you're only missing out, because it is you who is making the decision. I feel confident that the SCI FI Channel will eventually begin broadcasting in HD, but conversion is an expensive proposition. High-definition television is still in its infancy, and it will take years to convert all the available channels to HD.
I have no idea how old Mr. Avakian is, but I'm old enough to remember that during the 1960s, while color TV was available, a good many channels did not convert to color broadcasting until the late '60s. I've seen clips of Walter Cronkite broadcasting the CBS Evening News in black and white as late as 1969!
Yes, HDTV is the wave of the future and I'm positive the SCI FI Channel will eventually convert, but, unless you somehow haven't noticed (which I doubt, since you own one), HDTVs are still very expensive, and many people don't have the resources to buy them. When given the choice between $350 for a 27-inch flat-screen TV and up to $5,999 for an HDTV (some are even higher in price), most people will go for the $350 flat screen.
The prices will eventually come down and as more people can afford them, more channels will convert. I suggest patience and get used to the fact unless you relent in your stubbornness, wait for season eight to come out on DVD.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
have long thought that the SCI FI Channel should make every effort to join the HDTV world ("SCI FI Should Broadcast in HD"); but then I reconsidered, thinking over exactly what they offer to the viewing public most of the time.
Theodore Sturgeon coined a famous maxim which goes: 90 percent of everything is crap. Sadly, that is more than true for the SCI FI Channel. For every Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Farscape and Invisible Man, we get get entire warehouses of straight-to-video (or is it straight to DVD by now?) crap.
If they don't care about the low-quality of the majority of their programming, why would they care about their signal quality?
Richard S. Drake
rsdrake(at)nwark.com
lain Avakian ("SCI FI Should Broadcast in HD") complains that he "can't" watch his favorite shows because they're not broadcast on HDTV. To be more accurate, he chooses not to watch his shows as I'm very sure he still has the capability to do so. Lots of us in the sci-fi demographic are very much into high-tech, but that does not necessarily mean that we value television so much that we'll sink four-digit amounts to watch HDTV. I would ask him if his stance precludes watching Web movies on places like iFilm since they're obviously not going to be HDTV resolution.
Choosing not to watch something because of taste is understandable.
Choosing not to watch art solely because it's not in your format of choice is nothing more than tech snobbery.
Frank Lazar
fmlazar(at)mac.com
BC/Universal's idea for a horror movie channel got me to thinking about what separates science fiction from horror. That turned out to be easy. Science fiction wants to tantalize the mind with possibilities while horror wants to evoke fear and set off an adrenaline response of fight or flight. In the purist form—which few works are—one is mind candy and the other is
visceral. The action genre, which is infused in so many science-fiction movies, sets off visceral excitement, with the fear factor tamped down—but as the recent discussion about the problems translating Asimov's cerebral ideas emphasizes, action is not a requirement in science fiction.
Perhaps because science fiction and horror are both sub-sets of fantasy, they are easier to distinguish from each other than from fantasy which both share elements in common. And yet as someone who has ignored fantasy through 45 years of following science-fiction books and television, there is clearly a difference. I've finally decided the difference: in the purest form
fantasy eschews science. It seems for there to be magic, there can be no/little science. For example, Harry Potter's school looks like it was from before the Industrial Revolution except for the train, yet Harry comes from the present. It explains why so much fantasy seems to be set in the Dark Ages. Of course, again in execution, few works are pure; e.g. Charmed blends magic in a modern setting.
My only regret if a horror channel siphons off horror from the SCI FI Channel is that right now I clean house which ever weekend day that the SCI FI Channel runs horror movies. I might never watch a horror channel, but I could end up watching SCI FI Channel more. My house has to get cleaned.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
f some of your readers are interested in identifying old SF stories, perhaps someone could remember one that I have been trying to pin down for a long time. It dates to 1960 or before, and might have been one of the old Avalon books.
The plot was sort of a play on the Cold War: The U.S. was menaced by an enemy from overseas, but protected by forcefield technology. At one point, the "hero" was a captive of the bad guys and was forced to watch an innocent woman being crushed by a small force field, which was slowly growing smaller. The scene stayed with me because the character's inaction didn't match my 12-year-old expectations of a hero being able to save everyone.
I doubt that the book was any classic, since none of my First Fandom acquaintances remember it. Still, if anyone can end my curiosity, I'd be grateful.
Lynn Behrns
lynn(at)CENTRALIAMO.ORG
here are two types of science fiction. One—horror (monsters, mutant bugs, etc.) Two—science fiction (novels of pioneers Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and many more).
[The SCI FI Channel] should show more of just science-fiction without mutants, sharks or bugs. Someone should write and produce Asimov's Foundation series. Hey, there are five novels. Someone could make a good profit.
I did go see I, Robot, with Will Smith. I was impressed. The special effects were good. Also, Smith did a good job portraying the character of the novel. So, hopefully in the near future, movies and shows could come from the classic science-fiction writers. H.G. Wells was ahead of his time of what the future would be like.
Thanks for just listening to me gripe.
Nicholas Smith
nkvsmith(at)yahoo.com
s an older woman (60), I'd like to add my two cents about the return of Farscape ("Farscape Fever Inflames Fan"). This show is one of the best fantasy-romances I've seen.
I am a lover of science fiction, and have missed this series very much. The anticipation is really getting to me—but I know that when I see it, I'll be wanting to see more! I hope the powers that be will continue on with it.
Long live Farscape.
Gayle Loy
loyfromil(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
