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.
id the nomination committee of The Saturn Awards get hijacked by The Golden Globes? I pose this question to the class because I would like an answer as to why in the phantom zone did Julian McMahon and Nip/Tuck receive nominations?
Did they receive the nominations because of the horror of McMahon's acting and the fantasy aspects of Nip/Tuck? If not, then color me confuzzle, because I thought The Saturn Awards honored the contributions to the sci-fi genre.
Any answers will be appreciated. In the meantime, I'm notifying the authorities to go to yellow alert.
Joyce Mooney
dark_phoenix_2005(at)hotmail.com
ith reference to R. Lloyd's comments on Stan Lee ("Stan Wasn't the Only Man"), and the role of artists, there's another angle to consider. Throughout comic-book history the immediate impact of a quality artist has generally led to him achieving a higher level of fame than the writer with whom he was partnered. The star artist can sell a title just by drawing the cover. No writer can sell a title just by writing the foreword. Yet the artist often falls flat on his face when given the opportunity to create something whole.
Jack Kirby, Jim Starlin and Frank Miller are three who were able to master both skills equally well, but they are in a tiny minority. The likes of Neal Adams, Barry Windsor-Smith and Alex Ross have all shown that their talent as writers is far less than their fabulous artistic ability. What almost all of the great comic artists need—and what they owe a large portion of their success to—is the power of raw imagination possessed by those whose principal skill is writing. Comics history is littered with titles from star artists which prove that the ability to visualize someone else's idea in stunning fashion is not the same as being able to pluck a winning character or plot from thin air.
As for the role of other writers, it's true that Stan Lee cannot assume credit for the complex stories that Chris Claremont brought to the New X-Men, or the invention of Wolverine. But he is still fully entitled to assume the biggest credit. The reason being, all other writers and artists who contribute to anything titled X-Men are playing in Lee's sandbox. However good their work, they're adding to what he created and building on his base. Without that base, Wolverine might only have existed as a recurring foe of the Incredible Hulk, a character which was itself another Stan Lee original.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
recently picked up the excellent anime DVD Voices of a Distant Star, and I agree with the previous writer about the importance of relatively "small" anime titles. While I admit to being a fan of more popular anime like Akira, Robotech, Chobits etc., I feel that lesser-known titles (like Voices ... , Kino's Journey, Figure 17, etc.) drive a new sense of diversity.
Sure—sometimes a huge budget and an army of animators does help, but—just as it is for American comics and animation—for a fresh view of anime that isn't driven largely by money, the independents are a driving force.
I'm just sorry that so much great stuff is buried and overlooked by collectors who will mostly see, and buy, the bigger titles. I hope that more of the smaller stuff gets press in the Anime column, because it's at least worth a look.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh001(at)yahoo.com
his is in response to Frank Lazar's comment ("Seeking an Alternative to 'Sir'"), "The fact of the matter is, at this point in our history, 'sir' in whatever language it's used, is the root symbol of respect that every male officer in any military branch I've ever heard of expects his due right. ..." I think this statement is a huge generalization and probably more accurately reflects how the word "sir" equates to the word "respect" in Mr. Lazar's own mind rather than every male officer in any military branch he's ever heard of.
I realize the purpose of science fiction is not to address the absolute truths and realities of this world in the fictional world. Why did the writers let flourish the gender biases Mr. Lazar cites in his letter from this world to their fictional world. If Battlestar Galactica "isn't about the common experience on this planet," why have the writers chosen to perpetuate the gender struggles which are our realities? Was there no androgynous term this obviously creative team of people could invent? And was there no chance of creating a fictional world where the title "ma'am" was as synonymous with respect as the title "sir"?
I'm not an expert on the military. I'm not an expert on science fiction. I just know that I am a respected woman. People call me ma'am.
Christina Farrall
cfarrall2(at)christielodge.com
ue Hickey's letter commenting on the roots of science fiction ("SF Is Older Than You Think") cites some good examples, but I seem to recall a tale scribed by one of the ancient Greeks concerning a trip to the moon. Haven't been able to track down the title or its creator yet, but I do remember a mention of it in an article. Anyone know what I'm referring to?
As for Strange Paradise, one of our local stations in Ohio aired it briefly in the early '70s. There were even novels based on the show, also much in the same vein as Dark Shadows. The setting was in the Caribbean, possibly Haiti, with sensationalistic depictions of voodoo and zombies stirred heavily into the soap opera pot. The period was 18th or 19th century, I think.
Linda Stoops
jassmoris@yahoo.com
have written here on more than one occasion to complain about diversity, and the lack thereof, in science fiction today. I have spoken/written about Star Wars, all the different Star Trek series, even Deep Space Nine. Please don't let me get started on the term "pink skin" from that recently canceled show. Most notably I wrote about Frank Herbert's Dune. I won't go into detail but, suffice it to say, I was not happy.
But now I have no choice but to rejoice in what I consider a A+ effort and execution of a first-rate sci-fi series that shows people of all races. This show proves that quality programing can be done and still depict the entire human race in a realistic way. Not just token representation or, worse yet, none at all, as in Dune.
Battlestar Galactica has my vote for the best show on television. Not just because of diversity. It's a great show because of all of its elements: writing, production, directing, casting. Everything coming together to make an excellent show.
Good job, people!
Darnell Davis
qqdonq(at)yahoo.com
could have cared less about the return of Battlestar Galactica. As a little kid it was OK, but it did not age well in terms of storylines or the overall look of the show.
I am so pleasantly surprised and completely loving the new show. I'm so impressed with the care and attention to detail being paid to the plots, the cinematography, the characters and the technological look of things as well.
This is a show that one can really sink your teeth into. The acting is above par for most TV dramas, let alone sci-fi TV.
The story is cogent and delves into political issues, personal issues and, hell, even the albeit boring-but-vital-logisitics issues (need to find water, shortage of parts for ships, etc.). It really looks how a ragtag fleet of ships being hunted could possibly function.
Clearly some smart, detail-oriented folks are pouring a lot of themselves into BSG. They should be thanked and the SCI FI Channel should be commended for putting on a show that doesn't insult viewers' intelligence and requires patience and intelligence from its viewership.
Please keep up the good work!
Walter Curry
bwc1972(at)yahoo.com
hen I heard the news about Enterprise [being canceled], I was surprised. I happen to be one of those who believe that the show is one of the best on TV today. I have always been a fan of science-fiction entertainment from the '60s onward. Scott Bakula and his castmates have done an exemplary job these last four years. It would have been nice to see what they would have done in the next three years.
The vision of Star Trek is not exclusively about going where no one has gone before, but going out there, seeing what there is to see, and learning from the experience. In that respect, Enterprise has stayed true to Gene Roddenberry's vision. Each of the shows is set in a different era, with different views and opinions as well as technology. Of course, each show will be different, character interactions will be different, and developments will be different. Each one of the captains, Archer, Kirk, Picard, Sisko and Janeway are different, so each must be judged in context.
Congratulations, Enterprise, on a job very well done. We will all miss you.
Martin Connors
MARTIN_CON(at)msn.com
hile I agree in essence with Kevin Ahearn ("Enterprise Was Doomed to Fail") about Enterprise being doomed from the start by being created specifically as a show about Star Trek, I believe he missed one very important point: Enterprise was doomed from the very start by the very people it was aimed at: the majority of Star Trek fans.
From almost the moment the series was announced, fans began to complain. They complained that the words "Star" and "Trek" were not in the name of the show. (This was corrected shortly after the third season began.) Fans complained when the first promos appeared and didn't list Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. (The original series, The Next Generation and Voyager were mentioned.) When the pilot finally aired, there was such an outcry about the series using a theme song that the story about the completion of Earth's first "warp 5-capable ship" and our first contact with the Klingon Empire was almost completely overlooked.
It seemed that no one was satisfied with this series, including those who never watched a single episode! I have been absolutely stunned over the past several years by the number of people that have bitterly complained about this show, only to admit (even in print!) that they have never seen the show!
It seems that the life and demise of this TV series has reflected a growing trend in our overall culture. We have become so used to instant gratification that when we are confronted with something that doesn't instantly satisfy us, we reject it.
This was evident with Voyager and even more so with Enterprise. While both series sported excellent production and excellent casting, both suffered more from the fact that everybody complained about these shows than anything else. There have been numerous claims that these shows have taken divergent courses from the one that Gene Roddenberry set back in the 1960s and that Rick Berman and his "cohorts" "blew it."
If Berman hadn't changed the course of the Star Trek universe, people would have switched off not years ago, but over a decade ago. I won't say that I've always agreed with the choice of the scripts produced or even the quality of some of the scripts, but if you take any episode of any of the various Star Trek series and compare it with any other show on television, it will not only stand for itself, but in many cases, it will stand above the competition.
One has to remember that Rick Berman, and Gene Roddenberry before him, were producing product to entertain people and product for the various networks (or syndicated markets). Even Roddenberry admitted that he wasn't writing science fiction; he was using the medium of science fiction to present morality plays. With Voyager and Enterprise, Berman wasn't so much trying to present morality plays (though some have risen) as he was trying to entertain people, because that is what the people of today want.
I believe, after watching the parade of criticism over the past several years, that had Gene Roddenberry launched Star Trek today, rather than nearly 40 years ago, the show would have lasted three or four episodes, been laughed at and pulled in embarrassment. Not because the show wasn't good, but because it wouldn't stand a chance of living up to the inflated expectations we all harbor.
Perhaps it is a good thing for Enterprise to be canceled. Now, the only true sci-fi TV series left are Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis and Battlestar Galactica. While the two Stargate series have been renewed, no word has been given on whether or not Galactica will return for a second season. Keep this in mind, alleged sci-fi TV fans, as the pickings are getting thinner.
Should you watch a show you don't like? No. My grudge is with all the people who complained and whined about a show they "refused" to watch (even once) because they "heard" it wasn't anywhere near the quality of the original.
You should have compared. While its premise was faulty, Enterprise can stand proudly next the the original series.
I, for one, will miss it.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
have read in this week's newsletter about Amber Tamblyn's desire to take her role as Joan of Arcadia into a darker direction. I must say I agree with her. My mother and I have been watching the show since its first season, and we agree that the second season has not been as successful. The concept behind this new and intelligent drama is as original as popular new TV dramas in this century should be. Religious tones on television, as with Touched by an Angel and The Collector, are becoming more open to the needs of audiences. We need to probe further into this subject matter, because in this new era we have certainly evolved enough to accept religion's rightful place in the dramatic universe.
Joan had pondered whether it was God or Satan that she was communicating with in one episode, and I think that Satan should stake a claim somehow in Joan of Arcadia. Joan's continual questioning of God's enigmatic purpose of her is at the pivotal heart of this great drama and should always be open to new directions and controversies. With a smart actress like Ms. Tamblyn in the role, Joan of Arcadia should always have potential.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
Back to the top.
