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.
his Christmas I asked my mom to get me the whole book series of the Earthsea novels. I got interested in Earthsea because I watched the SCI FI miniseries and it was really great. The castings were perfect, especially the characters of Kristin Kreuk, Isabella Rossellini, Sean Ashmore and Dannny Glover. I'm asking you to tell the SCI FI [home video] department to make a DVD and release it in stores, because I want to own the Earthsea miniseries and watch [it] over and over again. I really want to tell you that the series is really, really good, and if I have the DVD, when I grow up, I can show my children or grandchildren that Earthsea is the best novel and the Legend of Earthsea was the greatest miniseries.
Isabelle Daluz
[address withheld]
was excited to see Earthsea slated to be on SCI FI after the nice job done on the story of Dune. Earthsea was my first fantasy series that I ever bought, and I had just started my son reading it. Not only do I agree with the writers of Issue #400 ("Earthsea Was All Wet", "Ads Brought Earthsea Down to Earth", "Earthsea's Heart Was Missing") in complaining about the story, but a more serious issue as well.
Imagine my disappointment at the whitewashing of the cast. With the exception of Danny Glover and the Kargarites (who were white), none of the actors were of the correct race. Ged and most of the residents of Earthsea where described as a red-brown, similar to Native Americans. Vetch, Ged's best friend, was black as well.
Unfortunately, SCI FI did a similar whitewashing of Dune (which should have clued Ms. Le Guinn into a problem before giving up creative control). This is the same reason I will refuse to watch Battlestar Galactica, because of whitewashing the roles of Boomer and Col. Tigh (two prominent black roles for science fiction in the '70s).
I'm so white in color that I'm almost transparent, and I'm very disappointed with the SCI FI Channel's treatment of race in science fiction and fantasy. Please don't drag us back into the 1950s.
William E. Snuffer II
yomogami(at)wowway.com
ci Fi Wire handled Ursula Le Guin's objections to Earthsea in an admirably honest way ("Le Guinn Blasts SCI FI's Earthsea"). It would have been easy to bypass the issue, and not to risk biting the hand that feeds you, but you did the right thing. In doing so, I think you gave the SCI FI Channel more credibility than it had up to that point.
I don't know Earthsea myself, but clearly Le Guin has a strong case that [producer Robert] Halmi [Sr.] and [director Robert] Lieberman botched the adaptation out of simple arrogance. I wouldn't have thought of holding the SCI FI Channel responsible for that, but its response was clearly disingenuous, and not only didn't address Le Guin's points but ended with an odd non-sequitur. (Roughly speaking, they justify the adaptation by saying it was a ratings success. Of course, you don't know anything about the adaptation until you tune in, at which point you've contributed to the ratings; what was well known ahead of time was the novels. In any case, it's more of a "we got away with it" argument than an argument in support of artistic merit, and it's hypothetical in nature—no one knows how well a different adaptation would have done.)
In an unrelated matter, there is something about Science Fiction Weekly that bothers me a bit, which is the way it speaks of interviews (for example, "Biel, Reynolds and Goyer took a moment recently to speak with Science Fiction Weekly about Blade: Trinity, which opens Dec. 8"). What follows is invariably just the same thing, word for word, you can find elsewhere. That's possible in principle, I guess, since actors give a lot of interviews, and presumably do repeat themselves, but when you read the same interview elsewhere, it's always described as something the actors said to a roomful of journalists. My guess is that the actors were speaking with Science Fiction Weekly only in the sense that the president of the United States speaks with the New Orleans Times-Picayune at a press conference. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
Best regards,
Brian White
bfwhite(at)optonline.net
find myself sympathetic to Ms. Le Guinn's antipathy towards the adaptation of her wonderful stories ("Le Guin Blasts SCI FI's Earthsea"). Indeed, the liberties taken with certain concepts and particulars might have been less onerous if the dialogue and acting were of a slightly higher caliber. I found the motivating explanations to be simplistic and the exchanges between characters bordering on the moronic. The principal protagonist, which could have been handled with dash and relish, was instead converted into a sophomoric juvenile petulance.
Paul LoSchiavo
Polynuktron(at)aol.com
or those of you who read the diatribe by Mr. Nathan Brazil ("New Line Needs Intestinal Fortitude") where he excoriated "the Christian Right" because New Line is considering changes to a particular movie to make it more palatable to a larger audience, please be reminded that no Christian organization lobbied, petitioned, boycotted, threatened, postered, wrote or in any way forced New Line to change its mind about shooting Dark Materials, or at least, as far as their announcement indicates, no such coercion occurred.
According to the SCIFI.com "News of the Week" article, "The studio wants alterations because of fears of a backlash from the Christian right in the United States..." ("Dark Materials Film Omits God") In other words, the company made a marketing decision; "If Market A, a sizeable portion of the population, is deeply offended by Movie B, then they may not support us on Effort C. Perhaps we ought to reconsider where we spend our resources." Many a company have done the same with regard to products that might offend gay and lesbian markets. Will Mr. Brazil start referring to various gay and lesbian organizations as the Gay and Lesbian Taliban? I can only conclude that Mr. Brazil's prosaic theatrics were unwarranted, and his comparison of "the Christian Right" to the Taliban was not only unkind and hysterical, it was far worse, untrue.
Mr. Brazil, you owe the readership of this webzine an apology for your irrational rantings, and in the future, if you will take some advice, then take a page from your own book: Just because you disagree with some group does not give you the right to demonize them.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell(at)walsworth.com
fter rewatching the first few episodes of this season's Smallville, I was reminded of the promise the season seemed to hold—and after a handful of episodes, lost (no pun intended). And now the show seems hopelessly in a rut.
For one, I accepted that Clark and Lana are a no-go. The wonderful casting of Lois Lane made it palatable, and I accepted Lana's new relationship. That was quite a coup to never pay off on the Clark and Lana tension and keep, at least, this viewer. However, I may have accepted it more than the writers and producers wanted; for me, despite the fact Clark isn't totally over Lana, I cannot go back and get reinvested in them at all. That's a problem, given that Lois has been almost nonexistent since that first arc, and Lana's a regular.
Second, the writers seem to be trying too hard to not let Clark evolve with "situational distractions" that keep him busy but don't seem to be steps in his evolution. For example, stories could start to set up a pattern of Clark saving strangers who don't realize they've been helped by a super being, rather than saving Lex and Lana, who have to be beyond wondering about
the laws of probability of one guy continually saving them. Saving strangers would begin to set up the pattern that leads to being Superman. The overarching witch plot feels like a distraction, and some of the way they use the mystery of the cave also is part distraction.
The Lex storyline has become redundant—some storyline this season seemed like a repeat of one from another season—but I can see that his father becoming good could force Lex into the more ruthless role to hold the family holdings together. Lex has shown better evolution to his eventual outcome than Clark.
If they keep this up, we may not find out how the writers will handle post high school.
And while I'm on The WB, Charmed seems to be on its last legs. They forgot the lesson they learned a couple of seasons ago that the show does better when they keep it light and it doesn't take itself too seriously. The show loses its sparkle every time they get too serious. It was so during Phoebe's marriage—what ever happened to her demon child?—and it's been so ever since they homed in on the threat to Piper's son about halfway through last season, and now this season, with the question of whether Leo has gone bad. There are overarching stories that could keep their more successful whimsical tone—especially with a school full of inept magical students. Playing Harry Potter from the opposite point of view (the staff) could have been fun.
And playing for ratings with the seemingly pointless interlude between Phoebe and Nick Lachey's character detracted from the quality of the show. And it was poorly set up—Phoebe taking off from work, but always going in?
I think both series still have potential life in them, but they need to retool intelligently—and fast.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
ichael Basil ("Spielberg's War Recruits Viewers") falls into the same trap as most other War of the Worlds fans (including Spielberg) in thinking that the 1953 movie is the true version. Go back and read Wells' novel and you'll realize that it's a parable of unpreparedness and overconfidence. It's about a Victorian England on top of its game that gets blindsided. "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one."
Wells truly took a science beyond the comprehension of his readers and put it up against average citizens. There was no hope of winning, and the only reason that Earth survived was that the Martians were also unprepared and overconfident. Lucky us.
Mr. Basil's comment about making the Martians as non-humanoid as possible (again) is a little movie biased. Wells described his Martians as "a big greyish rounded bulk, the size, perhaps, of a bear" while the 1953 movie makes them skinny with two legs with two arms. The promo poster for Spielberg's movie gives us the impression that the movie Martians are back.
Wells' tale would make a more interesting and visually impressive film. Spielberg's version sounds like just another big-budget action movie—a big-budget remake of a bastardized version of a truly original story.
Thank God for Jeff Wayne's version.
Jim James
Jimjames2001(at)hotmail.com
liked Anonymous Rex. It was by no means a deathless classic, but I found it entertaining. The plot was not memorable, but the message was a good one. The best thing about it was the inclusion of Faye Dunawaye and Isaac Hayes. Ms. Dunawaye and Mr. Hayes are new to science fiction but are veterans of the private-eye genre. Ms. Dunawaye was the femme
fatale in one of the best private-eye movies of all time, Chinatown. Mr. Hayes composed one of the three best private-eye themes, Shaft. He was also a semi-regular on The Rockford Files.
Vincent Rubio is no Jake Gittes, John Shaft or Jim Rockford, but he'll do in a pinch.
John E. Nolan
ronin2258(at)comcast.net
was wondering if anyone at Science Fiction Weekly had any information on the Blade Runner special-edition DVD? I seem to remember seeing it in stores many years ago; that is, assuming my mind was not playing tricks on me. It was, I know, originally set for release in 2002. The one in stores now only has Mr. Scott's director's cut (in both full- and wide-screen formats on a disc with its materials on both sides), and even the cast information is not exactly the best that it can be. If anyone at Science Fiction Weekly has any information that he or she could please share, I would be grateful. Thanks, and I would like to wish everyone at SF Weekly a merry Christmas.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Assistant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
We haven't heard anything about the special-edition DVD, but once we do, you'll be the first to know! We hope everyone's had a merry holiday season and a happy new year.
Best,
Brian
Back to the top.
