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 response to Mike Basil's call for a director's-cut treatment ("It Deserves a Director's Cut") of "It Came From Outer Space," I second the motion.
I saw this film on video for the first time just this week. (When it came out, I was 9 years old, and it never came to the kids' Saturday matinee.) Of course the film is dated. Simplicity is appealing. Shape-shifters were still new to the screen, but known from SF stories. A mystery arises. One man struggles heroically to resolve the problems raised while one woman stands up for her man, even though she thinks he's wrong. Hokey, wholesome, archetypal stuff!
It's interesting that all you have to do to scare people is keep your face bland, talk in a monotone and refuse eye contact. I was pleasantly surprised to be reminded that seeking a peaceful resolution of conflict was an ideal at the time. The Saturday matinee showed a lot of westerns and war hero movies, in between the Three Stooges and Porky Pig. The general idea was that a hero needed a gun and a trail of dead bodies.
I agree with Mike that It Came From Outer Space does not need a remake. It's entertaining in itself, and sparks discussion. Also, the haircuts are kind of fun.
What does Ray Bradbury say about it?
Irene Grumman
igrumman(at)nethere.com
hat an interesting world Kevin Ahearn inhabits ("Hoaxing Isn't Always What It Seems"). His comments on
publishing made me wonder if I'd inadvertently slipped into another dimension. Kevin told us, "I don't care who wrote it. SF & F is no longer a 'name game.'" That is an absurd statement, especially from a publisher. Does he seriously believe that if any commercial concern published a fantastically well-written book by N. O'Body, and another by Terry Brooks, that the former would not sell vastly less copies than the latter? It is precisely because publishing has been
reduced to little more than a name game that new names are so very hard to establish.
Most bemusing of all was Kevin's comment "Create a concept, characters and a conflict that people will pay money to read or pay PublishAmerica." Does he not understand that what people will pay to read is dictated by availability and marketing, which in turn are governed by an industry interested only in numbers. Accountants run publishing, and what they want is what has a well-proven track record, with sufficient advance sales. Innovation scares the hell out of them, because it's an unknown quantity. Big numbers are rarely generated by anything which comes from a brilliant-but-unknown author, so quality becomes secondary. The classic example being Tolkien, who had the concept, characters and conflict, but was still turned down by umpteen publishers!
Two elements which keep the wheels from falling off the wagon are that every so often someone does put their job on the line by taking a chance, and is proved right. Thus allowing a great new idea to blossom. Or, more often, by throwing enough at the wall a big-league publisher finds something that sticks, but doesn't smell. Everything else is in R&R, rejections and remainders.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
respectfully disagree with Mr. Ahearn's ("Hoaxing Isn't Always What It Seems") definitions throughout his February 22, 2005, letter (re: the PublishAmerica brouhaha) of the word "hoax," some of which seem to be rhetorical in nature.
I do agree with Mr. Ahearn's statement that PublishAmerica is itself a hoax since it claims to be a traditional publisher when it appears to be nothing more than a printer. However, I disagree with him in that I also believe the Atlanta Nights authors did indeed perpetrate a hoax, and a good one, by sending a manuscript that was not merely "awful" but that deliberately included entire sections of nonsense words as well as repeating sections, in order to show that PublishAmerica is not what it claims to be (a traditional publisher), since it clearly does not read manuscripts before accepting them.
Also, and I apologize because I know this will seem argumentative, but Mr. Ahearn's last paragraph is confusing to me. "Therein lies the heart of this hoax. Is there any SF & F being written by anybody worth publishing?" (Is he asserting that there is, or
that there isn't, or just asking the question? And yes, there is a lot of SF&F being written that is worth publishing.) "For the new author, has F & SF publishing become a hoax?" (Not if they do their market research.) "Will I be hoaxed someday? What if a manuscript I turned down turned out to be written by none other than ... ?" (This wasn't the nature of
the Atlanta Nights hoax at all, so I'm not sure where this is going.) "Create a concept, characters and a conflict that people will pay money to read or pay PublishAmerica" (Yes, write well ... but what does that have to do with the "no, Atlanta Nights isn't a hoax; yes, Publish America is a hoax; heck, is all SF&F a hoax?" questions in his letter?)
I suppose what I'm getting at is that Mr. Ahearn's letter seems to be taking a current "hot" issue (PublishAmerica) and turning it into an unrelated essay on a topic that seems dear to his heart, the current state of SF&F, which I think he's saying is not as great as it used to be. I don't doubt Mr. Ahearn's sincerity, and many of his letters have demonstrated that he has a long-standing familiarity with the SF classics, but I'm not sure that taking any
given topic of the day (Enterprise cancellation, PublishAmerica, etc.) and linking it to a largely rhetorical "state of SF&F" essay is entirely convincing or successful.
Finally, and most importantly, I couldn't help but giggle when I read Mr. Ahearn's statement: "PublishAmerica's assertion that 'science-fiction and fantasy writers' are 'untalented hacks' with 'no clue about what it is to write real-life stories, and how to find them a home' is, unfortunately, not without truth. Of this 'group of more than 30 SF and fantasy authors,' one wonders the last time any of them wrote anything that made a dent in the 'real' publishing market."
The following link shows some of the 30 contributors' names, most of which will be immediately recognizable to science-fiction and fantasy readers: coldground.typepad.com/cold_ground/2005/01/atlan
ta_nights_.html
For what it's worth, it only took me about three minutes on Amazon to find the following publications by just a randomly picked handful of these authors—and this list represents a mere fraction of these authors' traditionally and recently published works:
James D. McDonald. A Working of Stars (co-written with Debra Doyle, hardcover from Tor Books, April 2002, reprinted in mass market July 2003)
Charles Coleman Finlay. Prodigal Troll (hardcover from Pyr, imprint of Prometheus Books, forthcoming July 2005)
Adam-Troy Castro. Spider-Man: Secret of the Sinister Six (hardcover from I Books/Marvel, March 2002)
Allen Steele. Coyote Rising (hardcover from Ace, December 2004)
Megan Lindholm. The Gypsy (co-written with Stephen Brust, trade paperback from Orb, April 2005)
Robin Hobb. Fool's Fate (hardcover from Bantam Spectra, February 2004, reprinted in mass market November 2004)
Brenda Clough. How Like a God (hardcover from Tor, March 1997, reprinted in trade paperback February 1998)
Again, I apologize if I seem argumentative. I think the PublishAmerica incident has the tendency to get people riled up, me included.
Amy Sisson
amysisson(at)prodigy.net
've only occasionally watched the TV movies aired on Saturday nights on the SCI FI Channel due to the usually poor quality of scripts they exhibit (Atomic Train being a recent exception). But the movie that aired this last Saturday, Slipstream, piqued my interest once I knew it was a time paradox story (I'm a real sucker for time paradox stories) and featured Sean Astin from Lord of the Rings.
Imagine my astonishment when my attention was grabbed and tightly held for the full two hours by the ingenious script, good acting, very stylish directing and surprisingly effective musical score. The premise of the film—repeatedly resetting time to an earlier point to make different decisions based on what you learned the first time through—has only been done once before that I can think of, in A.E. van Vogt's 1980 novel Cosmic Encounter, so it was nice to see a type of time paradox that hasn't been done to death. The plot was intriguing and logically executed, and having it centered around a bank heist was a brilliant move, and its potential was used to the fullest extent possible. The film also had some of the most impressive directing I've ever seen in a movie and reflected a level of skill seldom seen on TV movies, with the smooth slow motion and reversing being perfectly in keeping with the central idea, story and musical accompaniment.
I was entranced by Slipstream as I have been by few other movies, and even went through the trouble of waking up my sister, who had just gone to bed (she's the only one in our family who knows how to work the VCR) to get her to scrounge up a tape and set it to record the second showing. That makes it the first SCI FI original TV movie that I've not only considered recording, but actually did so. My thanks, therefore, to all involved in the making of Slipstream for creating such a superb film, and to the SCI FI Channel for having the good sense to air it instead of their usual mediocre fare!
Isaac Wilcott
icshi(at)earthlink.net
ick Carter's (Steven Spielberg's production designer) comments at WonderCon in San Francisco that "the idea of this version of War of the Worlds is that it really takes place in our world. So it's not as though we created a new world the aliens come into. It's our world," nutshells what's missing in today's published SF.
"Typical science fiction recently has a tendency to kind of make it too fantastic and sort of detach itself from reality," added Carter. "[But] for this story, ... what really appealed to me was that it was a real story, and it was a very serious take on the whole thing. What would really happen if aliens came down, and how would we address it?"
SFf publishing is "detached from reality" and is on the verge of complete irrelevancy in the new millennium because it has yet to produce a novel that confronts the multi-issues of our brave new world. Not to worry, though. There is one novel the SF community can count on to sell well this summer: H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds.
Or will the original book take a back seat to its "novelization?"
Such is the state of current science fiction, whose writers seem to have nothing better to do than to "hoax" so-called "vanity" publishers ("SF Authors Sting Publisher", "Publisher Defends Hoax Charges").
Such is the vanity of the Science Fiction Writers of America.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
ith all due respect to Michael Basil's observations on the subject of Joan of Arcadia's possible turn to darker topics ("Satan Should Have a Stake on Joan"), to include a visit from Satan, as this entity is defined by a small handful of religions, defeats the intent of the show's creators. Since they chose not to limit the concept of a universal creator to an old white man in robes with a specifically Western agenda (as shows like Highway to Heaven and Touched by an Angel most clearly did), it wouldn't make sense to insert a certain "man of wealth and taste" into the framework. Many faiths don't have a concretized "Dark Other" in their belief systems, and some that do consider it to be the Creator's other, destructive face.
Granted, the existence of evil should be explored, and it has been. Witness the minor pettiness of some of the high-school students, the spirit-killing despotism of the vice principal, the corrupt behavior of the local politicians in the first season and, most recently, the machinations of Annie Potts' police chief. One doesn't need an Anti-Christ of the LaHaye/Jenkins stripe to prove that negative forces dwell side-by-side with positive. To do so would not only limit the scope of evil, but of good, as well.
As Joan of Arcadia has demonstrated, and to quote Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing." Doing something, and learning to make the right choices (free will, you know) is the overall point of the show.
Linda Stoops
jassmoris(at)yahoo.com
hile, in general, I am very pleased with the new Battlestar Galactica series, and have come to enjoy it more and more with each episode, I do have one rather large complaint: too much smoking.
First, maintaining a good atmosphere onboard a spacecraft is hard enough, so why are the crew allowed to smoke? It seems like an unnecessary strain placed on the life-support systems (please don't start on "smoker's rights").
Second, the chief surgeon/medical officer/doctor that has been treating the president. His smoking around patients, especially those whom have asked him to stop, is disgusting and reprehensible. No one should be allowed to smoke in a medical facility, no matter what your rank (or attitude) is.
Third, smoking as a plot or characterization device is truly unnecessary, especially in a science-fiction series. The ambiguity and rebelliousness of Starbuck and Baltar are clear enough without them being smokers.
David Brauner
mozart827(at)yahoo.com
was prepared to hate the new Battlestar Galactica. Partly, because of my memories of the old series and partly because the SCI FI Channel has disappointed me in the past. But I'm hooked. So far, it's not as good as Babylon 5, but I'll give it a chance. The casting is good, the characters are diverse, and the twist of not knowing who your enemy is by looking at him is very relevant to current events. There are little nits, like why they permit smoking on a spaceship, especially cigars. But some things I'll overlook because TV can't be too subtle. The smokes are props to establish the characters. Of course, I love Starbuck for so many reasons. (That's another letter.)
One response I did want to make to the discussion of the use of "sir"
with female officers ("Military Females Deserve Respect", "Ma'am Deserves Sirs' Respect"). I don't find it odd. I was not in the service, but I worked on an Air Force base. I have been called "sir" by gate guards at night and sympathized when they apologized later. (I don't have overtly feminine features or build.) I think it makes sense to use a gender-neutral title because in the military there should be no distinction between service members based on sex, just as there is no different title for old or young. In a crisis situation, you do not want to waste time identifying the sex of your officer before responding. As a woman who lived through the rise of feminism, tokenism, etc., I am sensitive to language that excludes women. I understand why someone would think that the use of "sir" marginalizes women. However, as an SF fan, I think of it this way. Although the people in BSG are human, they are not Earthlings. They probably would not even speak English after all these years. I think of the dialogue as a translation of their real language, which has a gender-neutral form of a title of respect in the military. However, English does not have a such a word. But, English often uses the masculine form of words to refer to both men and women. It was accepted usage for the pronoun "he" to be used when the sex was unknown or not important to the subject. Unfortunately, in our world "ma'am" has a connotation of solicitous respect, while "sir" has the connotation of obedient, even fearful, respect. The use of "sir" on BSG helps us remember we are watching SF. Although it does reflect our culture, as good-science fiction will, BSG is not our culture, and the writers try to help us remember that.
Marilyn Mix-Taylor
mix-taylor(at)comcast.net
he reasons for the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise, and subsequent failed attempts to save it or get another network to pick it up, are so basic that I'm surprised by the number of fans who seem shocked at its demise, and I am a fan, by the way. Its budget was high, as was its production value, but its rating and ad revenues were low. Sure the studio will recoup its cost with syndication (the only real reason for the fourth season) and DVD sales and rentals, but even if the ratings had improved, it wasn't cutting it as a network show.
The reason it did so poorly in the ratings is also basic: They couldn't find or grow an audience. The entire premise of the series, a prequel based on nostalgia of fans to see how it all began, was, from the beginning, destined to fail. With ratings dropping throughout the three previous Star Trek series, the fourth series needed to address this critical decline in viewers, which it failed at miserably. Voyager actually saw a demographic shift because of the female lead, and, while overall ratings slide, it did bring new viewers who had never watch a Trek show before.
This is not a indictment of genre TV in any way. The viewers are there, but they're being courted by many other suitors. Star Trek: The Next Generation was a pioneer in the sci-fi TV drama genre. Its success paved the way for many more genre shows, and in doing so, was the catalyst for its own demise. Compare genre TV of 1988 to the present. Today there is a whole network dedicate to sci-fi which, when not creating B-movies and inane reality shows, puts out some stellar TV (Stargate SG-1, Stargate Atlantis, Battlestar Galactica, Farscape, Invisible Man, The Chronicle, First Wave). Networks and syndication caught on and we got The X-Files, Quantum Leap, Sliders, Roswell, Smallville, Buffy, Angel, Babylon 5, The Outer Limits, and many more. We actually live in a healthy economic and creative environment for sci-fi to do quite well. That success has actually increased the overall audience for scifi.
I think we all should look upon the Star Trek franchise, Enterprise included, with admiration, respect and thanks, whether you're a fan of it or not, because it showed network executives that there was more to entertainment than westerns. Gene Roddenberry's "Wagon Train to the stars" has been very good to us. It has earned and deserves a break.
Trek will be with us always though in reruns, DVDs, and don't forget books. There are hundreds of new adventures to read. I recommend the A Time To ... TNG series and the Stargazer books. With them the adventure never has to end ...
Live long and prosper.
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
reat news that Joel Silver seems to be in charge of the long-rumored Wonder Woman project. Likewise the choice of Joss Whedon as director ("Whedon Wooed For Wonder"), given his experience with strong female lead characters, cannot be argued. The only caveat to this choice would be a possible automatic elimination of one of the best choices for the character, Charisma Carpenter. The actress has publicly expressed an interest in the role and physically is a perfect fit. As a fan of all three I hope that any potential past problems can be set aside. A collaboration of these talented folks could make for a fun franchise, not just a single film.
Doug Dale
ddale(at)coda.cc
Back to the top.
