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.
egarding Science Fiction Weekly's review of The Runes of the Earth:
"One battle scene in The Runes of the Earth describes '[b]lood and shredded flesh [that] articulated the dust' (p. 515). If the dust is articulated, it is either talking or has jointed limbs. Neither interpretation makes sense. Here, as in too many other places, The Runes of the Earth leaves readers with no idea what Donaldson means."
I suspect that Mr. Donaldson (I am a fan, having read, I believe, all of his published works, though I have not yet purchased Runes of the Earth) means by "articulated" is not talking or jointed, but moving or movement (the definition refers to sound in this respect, according to the American Heritage Dictionary).
When this definition is used, the sentence not only makes sense, but is remarkably vivid, saying that the dust itself appears, because of all the grue and gore upon it, almost alive, in motion (perhaps even flowing, like blood in the vein).
Works really well, when you think of it in terms of graphic imagery.
Brian McNeal
got265(at)fastermac.net
n response to Mr. Downey's e-mail ("Modern SF Is Stagnant") complaining about the stagnant state of today's SF, I'd like to disagree. Obviously, there's a lot of bad stuff out there and it seems to be what gets the most promotion, but I don't seem to have a problem finding good new stuff. In particular, I find that we continue to have no shortage of excellent authors producing very imaginative work. James Alan Gardner, Alastair Reynolds, Kage Baker, Charles Stross, Jack McDevitt and others too numerous to mention continue to produce books that I find stirring. I haven't had the chance to read the books mentioned by Mr. Downey, but that is because there are so many other interesting things to read.
With respect to rock and roll, may I suggest trying "Fountains of Wayne," "Modest Mouse," "Franz Ferdinand" or "Death Cab for Cutie." Some of the past greats like Springsteen are still producing great music.
As many people have said in these pages, it's hard to reproduce that rush of discovery as we grow older. I hope to be able to maintain a more mature appreciation for the literature and music I grew up with.
Now, I admit that finding quality SF at the movies is an iffy proposition at best, but it seems to have always been. For every Forbidden Planet and 2001, there are at least 20 clinkers like Mars Needs Women and Armageddon. I've found that keeping a sort of
MST3K attitude for SF movies and TV helps.
I feel like a cheerleader here, but if he digs just a bit, reads the Science Fiction Weekly book reviews, buys Analog and Asimov's and joins the SFBC he may find that there is still good stuff waiting to be discovered. It's worked for me.
Monty Moore
MONTY_MOORE(at)comcast.net
et again I see someone coming down on current science fiction in the
Letters page (Scott D., "Modern SF Is Stagnant"). What has this person
been reading, movie novelizations? In fact, current science fiction is as imaginative or more so than any previous era, and has better prose, better characterization, better practically everything except pacing.
Where once you would get hard science-fiction writers who would explore physics and get it right but have characters of purest cardboard and societies that looked like transplanted '50s, and then "soft" science-fiction writers who explored changes in civilization but hand-waved any technological elements, and a lot of SF that just had some techie trappings and tight plots, now you get writers who combine strong atmosphere, social exploration, solid technologies (and their social impacts) and characterization that by '60s or '70s standards is just phenomenal. The plotting isn't as tight—I can't believe the page counts on some of this stuff. But aside from that, grand work.
From David Brin's latest, Kiln People, to the Child of the River trilogy by Paul McAuley, from Lois McMaster Bujold to Connie Willis, from The Collapsium to A Deepness in the Sky (both, I think, reviewed right here on Science Fiction Weekly), not to mention Dan Simmons' Hyperion/Endymion books—I could go on and on and on. The golden age of written science fiction is now; when I go back and read something like Foundation, I appreciate the basic idea but frankly, both the execution and the general assumption that things can be that simple seem amateurish compared to much of what's being written now. Movies or TV are another story, but written science fiction is as good as it's ever been, or better.
Rufus Polson
dpolson(at)sfu.ca
'm afraid that J. Lee Watts ("Bad Sci-Fi Knows No Boundaries") absolutely blew it when he claimed that the 1981 BBC-TV production of Douglas Adams' Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy is an example of bad British science fiction and I can't help wondering about his obvious problem with the classic Dr. Who (in which he claims he shudders).
When it came to science fiction, unfortunately, BBC has always had one major problem: budgets. I remember the TV version of Hitchiker fondly. Yes, it was bad, but it was supposed to be bad. It was a farce, a black comedy, a stick in the eye of everyone who felt that science fiction just had to be serious! I laughed myself silly.
Dr. Who, however, is sacred ground. Yes, many of the special effects, such as they were, were horrid, but it was a matter of low budgets and the fact that no one had a clue how else to do them! Many of the effects used on Dr. Who were groundbreaking and were used to great effect in later year as a basis for future series (including, I believe, the original Star Wars movies). The stories were tightly bound fiction, with drama, action and not a little bit of comedy to lighten things up.
While I've never seen all of the series (impossible now, since the BBC unwittingly destroyed many episodes of the first Doctor), I've seen many episodes from the third through the fifth Doctors as well as several from the sixth. Doctor Who was one of science fiction's longest-running television entries, and it was for a good reason: It was great! I can't wait to see the new version now in the planning stage.
From a production viewpoint, I'll admit that Hitchhiker and Dr. Who were low quality, but that again is the fault of the budgets provided. They did the best that they could and did it well. Just go out and buy Space: 1999, which is available on DVD. The first half, produced by Sylvia Anderson, was excellent. The second half, with a far higher budget and produced by American Fred Freiberger, was probably some of the worst science fiction television ever produced.
Hold your heads high, Dr. Who fans, for the Doctor was and is one of sci-fi's greatest television creations, and laugh, you Hitchhikers, for that's what Douglas Adams did, and probably is still doing from beyond the veil.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
hristopher Reeve was and always will be a true Superman, from his incarnation as the Man of Steel on the big screen to his fearless battle with paralysis. His last film before his accident was John Carpenter's remake of Village of the Damned, though he still contributed to science fiction and the Superman universe with his special appearances in Smallville. He will be forever missed by fans of the superhero genre and by the human species he has inspired to live beyond physical limitations. As he stated during his speech at the 68th Academy Awards, there is no challenge that we cannot meet. You proved it to us all, Christopher. Farewell and thank you.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
can't believe Fox reneged on Tru Calling, first cutting back the episodes and then filling her timeslot! I had been really looking forward to its return. I guess Fox is more interested in keeping intact their record of shutting down promising science fiction with decent-by-sci-fi-standards ratings, rather than nurturing them.
Tru joins the a long list of decent Fox science fiction that deserved better: Lone Gunmen, Dark Angel, John Doe, Firefly. Boo-hiss, Fox! Any one of those series, had they gone 66 episodes, could have played forever in syndication, making money—just like Buffy, which Fox made but thankfully didn't run—or (shudder) we might have had only one season of that! To paraphrase Buffy, Fox and science fiction aren't good mixey things.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
can't believe that no one has stood up against a blatant demonstration of -ism that apparently has been heretofore overlooked in Star Wars: Fatism.
Not only are the low-grade villains (not the cool ones like your Darth whatevers and your Bobble Hats, only the inept ones) on the chunky side (bloaty-boy Jabba and pot-bellied Wattoo), but you're not safe even if you're one of the good guys.
Consider. The first pilot to get aced in the Death Star attack was a big fella. His name ... Porkins.
How did he die? He couldn't pull up in time!
As a lardy, I am serving notice that further works of Mr. Lucas which denigrate girthsome exuberance will not be looked upon with favorable eyes. Once I've torn them away from the pie-shop window.
Dave Cullen
d.r.cullen(at)virgin.net
ue to technical problems, many of your letters didn't reach the Science Fiction Weekly inbox until too late to be able to include them in this week's issue. We apologize for the abbreviated Letters column.
Back to the top.
