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.
hese Bizarro anthologies unleash a legion of writers and cartoonists not usually associated with superhero comics and let them play in the DC Universe, unrestrained and unconcerned by continuity or the usual tropes and expectations of the superhero genre, with an emphasis on humor."
I enjoyed reading Mr. Claude Lalumière's critique of Bizarro World by DC comics. I have often found stories about superhero fantasy that are written by writers from the non-mainstream side of the comic-book industry to be interesting and entertaining. This is because their creators either inject new ideas into an already existing genre or take the existing cliches and tell fresh stories.
Here is to hoping that more "indie" writers will be invited in by the mainstream comic-book companies to use their material to tell stories that are thankfully outside the norm.
Julian Gift
juliang(at)tstt.net.tt
hile there are enough incoherent, obtuse and flat-out wrong assertions in Kevin Ahearn's last
letter (Issue #409, "Hoaxing Isn't Always What It Seems") to fuel a lengthy article deconstructing and rebutting them, I'd just like to take on his most egregious comments, starting with this one:
"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."
Had Mr. Ahearn bothered to do any research whatsoever, he might have discovered that the list of contributors to Atlanta Nights includes Sherwood Smith (17 novels and counting), the team of Debra Doyle and James MacDonald (at least 22 novels and counting), Sheila Finch (8 novels), Alan Steele (10 novels), Victoria Strauss (6 novels) Robin Hobb/Megan Lindholm (18 novels), Brenda Clough (7 novels) and Teresa Nielsen Hayden (not a novelist, but the widely renowned editor of several hundred novels and counting). This doesn't even begin to cover pseudonyms, short stories and other publications; suffice to say that all of these people probably know more about "making a dent" in the "real publishing market" than Mr. Ahearn does. When I say "novels" I am of course referring solely to novels that major publishers paid these authors to write; not one involves vanity publishing, nor anything like PublishAmerica's ceremonial $1 "advance," which richly deserves its quotation marks. Mr. Ahearn continues:
"Therein lies the heart of this hoax. Is there any SF & F being written by anybody worth publishing?"
According to Locus magazine, last year saw the publication of 1,417 new SF/F/horror titles in the American market alone (and nearly as many reissued titles). While all of these can't possibly be huge hits, in the aggregate it's probably a safe assumption that their publishers are making enough money on them to keep putting them out, which means someone, somewhere, must find the authors "worth publishing." My educated guess is that Tor, Ace, Del Rey, Baen, Harper Collins, etc. don't pay their employees or their creditors in invisible pixie cash.
"For the new author, has F & SF publishing become a hoax?"
As it happens, I sold my first novel to a publisher in the U.K. in September of last year, as part of a contract for four books total. They didn't pay me in invisible pixie cash, either. You want to talk about hoaxes, Mr. Ahearn? What do you call it when you toss around casually insulting assertions that are clearly, embarrassingly unresearched?
Oh, yeah—China Miéville. Charlie Stross. George R.R. Martin. Neil Gaiman. Neal Stephenson. Richard K. Morgan. Steph Swainston. Tim Powers. Jo Walton. M. John Harrison. Kage Baker. Matthew Woodring Stover. Sean Stewart. Nalo Hopkinson. Octavia Butler. Lois McMaster Bujold. Gregory Keyes. Steven Erikson. Terry Pratchett. Joe Haldeman. Greg Bear. William Gibson.
Dan Simmons. Vernor Vinge. John Scalzi. Steven Brust. Kim Stanley Robinson. Cory Doctorow. And that's just off the top of my head! "Anybody worth publishing," indeed.
Scott Lynch
talldorkstranger(at)yahoo.com
hile I usually agree with Mr. Ahearn's comments, I find his recent letter a little troubling and confusing ("SF Writers Should Find Reality"). He begins with a quote from a member of the film industry; one that is more likely directed at science-fiction film than science-fiction literature. He uses this quote to support his contention that SF publishing "is detached from reality," and ends his letter with a comment that places the blame for this on the writers. Mr. Ahearn makes no distinction between the commercial imperative that drives the
large corporations in control of most publishing houses, and the creative drive of individual writers. Or, in simpler terms, just because something good isn't published, does not mean it hasn't been written.
Mr. Ahearn asserts that SF publishing has yet to "produce a novel that
confronts the multi-issues of our brave new world." What are these "multi-issues?" Cloning? Stem cells? Nano-technology? Gay marriage? The increasing importance of the so-called Third World? Religion? Artificial intelligence? The SF literature I have seen recently has been confronting all these issues and more. Could you please give some specific examples of what you mean by "multi-issues" and in what way they are overlooked?
Finally, Mr. Ahearn faults the writers whose hoax revealed the true nature of PublishAmerica by saying, "whose writers seem to have nothing better to do than to 'hoax' so-called 'vanity' publishers" and "such is the vanity of the Science Fiction Writers of America." Sorry Mr. Ahearn, but in this case you are simply wrong. SFWA acts as a form of ombudsman for genre writers, to protect them from fraud, theft and other unscrupulous activities to which they might fall victim. A quick reading of the SFWA Website would easily show this. Using the hoax to discredit the claims of a questionable publisher was not "vanity" ... it was, and is, their job.
Lewis Murphy
lmurp02(at)mindspring.com
n regards to the recent flap about SF and fantasy writers stinging PublishAmerica ("SF Authors Sting Publisher", "Publisher Defends Hoax Charges"), I'd just like to say that even though there are plenty of crooks in publishing—as there are in every field—one shouldn't be so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. With costs rising every year, publishers are going to be more and more reluctant to gamble on any writer without a proven track record. Unless your name is King, Clancy or Grisham, or unless you write a cheesy melodrama about spousal abuse and are anointed by Oprah, the cruel truth is that even the best novel by an unknown isn't worth the financial risk.
This is why print-on-demand (or POD) publishing should be seen not as a literary ghetto, but as an alternative to the corporate machine, much as indie films are now hailed as a refreshing change from the usual bloated, big-budget Hollywood pap. When I self-published my first novel in the late 1980s, printing costs alone were so high that there was no money left over for any sort of publicity, and the book died a quick death. Since the advent of POD technology, however, I've published three novels—two SF and one thriller—through Authorhouse (formerly 1stBooks Library) and, while none of them have exactly set the world on fire, I did break even on each one. There are disadvantages to self-publishing, the biggest being the lack of a trained editor; but this can be overcome by hiring a free-lance editor, joining a writer's group or just going over the manuscript several times with an eagle eye. Also, it's mainly up to the author to come up with his or her own marketing strategy, which can be easily accomplished through local interviews, book signings, setting up a Web site, etc. The advantages? There are many! The author of a POD book generally retains all secondary rights to the work (movies, TV, foreign language sales, etc.), royalties are slightly higher than with a traditional publisher, and the author has some input as to the cover graphics and advertising copy. Then there's the biggest advantage of all: when you self-publish, you are published! Your work is out there for everyone to see and (hopefully) buy. How many traditional authors, with their piles of form letter rejections, can say the same thing?
On a purely unrelated topic: Enterprise is canceled just as it's showing improvement, while Stargate Atlantis, which has never been good, will probably be around for years to come. What's wrong with this picture?
Michael P. Murphy
mmurphy(at)globaldialog.com
ike so many of you, I have loved SF & F ever since I could read. An admitted idealist, I've always believed that the genre at its peak had been created by people not only with vision and imagination and respect for the written word, but also, with guts.
In A Christmas Carol, the most popular fantasy story ever written, Dickens' railed against the inequities of the British class system. In 1984 and Animal Farm, Orwell took on the whole Communist empire. Heinlein and Bradbury, Roddenberry and Serling were individualists who attacked the ignorance and arrogance of establishment group-think. That's what memorable SF & F is about.
When once it took only one SF & F writer with a great novel to challenge the mighty Powers That Be, now 30 SFWA members with an awful novel are needed to "hoax" PublishAmerica.
Alas, the greatness of the few has given way to the mediocrity of the many.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
ecently, it's been announced that there will be some new merchandise for the upcoming Serenity movie, a couple of action figures and comics, as well as some novels that were previously announced, including a novelization. While I'm a big fan of various tie-in novels, comics and figures, I'd rather see Firefly kept at the merchandise minimum.
Why?
Because these things have the tendancy to really mess up a franchise. Both Star Trek and Star Wars have a huge number of novels out. I know that Star Wars has done an OK job with keeping them in order, but some friends of mine, and from other things that I've seen, ST is a bit more of a mess.
The main problem that I see with 50 Firefly books and comics and whatever else is that with a number of different authors and/or artists, there will be many small differences in tone,
characterization and the overall feel to the 'verse that we all know well and love.
For example: Star Wars is another universe that I really like, but some of those books are so mindblowingly bad that I've become somewhat disillusioned with the universe. I wasn't a fan of the New Jedi Order novel series, or a big fan of several other books that came along the way, mainly because they didn't feel like Star Wars to me. It would be horrible for this to happen to Firefly.
Personally, I think that the genre is suited much better for the TV screens, where certain things get over much better. While I'm planning on getting the comics and whatever novels come out, I really don't want to see this universe be used as a stomping ground for various writers.
Andrew Liptak
jeditrilobite(at)gmail.com
inda Stoops ("SF May Have Been Greek to Them") wishes to know who the ancient Greek writer was, who wrote of a voyage to the moon. It was Lucian of Samosata, a writer from the second century A.D. In point of fact, he wrote two works involving a journey to the moon, one called True Stories and the other Icaromenippus. Both stories are satirical rather than fantasy, as the ironic title of the first might lead you to suspect. This tells of how Odysseus and his companions are swept up to the moon in a sea spout caused by a whirlwind, where the inhabitants are preparing to make war with the inhabitants of the sun. The point being, that some things never change.
Fr. Euan Marley
euan.marley(at)english.op.org
ne Battlestar left. A ragtag fleet of civilian vessels in tow. The Secretary of Education as president. Less then 50,000 survivors left of the 12 colonies. Cylons walking among us undetected. A handful of trained and dedicated pilots flying outdated Vipers, who know that their chances of surviving this war are less then those they defend. And you want to nag about smoking on board a ship? (BSG Should—Puff-Puff—Give It Up)
Are you serious? With all that is going on, don't you think that there are more pressing issues than this? Would you deny someone who goes out and puts it on the line everytime such simple comforts as smoking? The odds of anyone surviving this war so slim, you're going to complain about the effects of second-hand smoke? Are you sure you're not a Cylon out to destroy what little is left of our morale? I thank the Lords of Kobal everyday for every day that I draw breath, be it second-hand smoke or pure O2.
Marc I. Wane-Schenkel
miws3(at)comcast.net
think it's time to look at things realistically and put down the signs, put our wallets back into our pockets or pocketbooks, head home and enjoy the last few episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise while we still have it.
Paramount has already announced that it is not interested in shopping the series to other networks; broadcast or cable. Seeing that Paramount owns the Star Trek franchise lock, stock and barrel, it's highly unlikely that it will reverse its opinion and try shopping the series around.
I do think it's commendable that many people are fighting to save the series, but this has become so common that networks and studios now ignore it. Back in 1967 and 1968, it was new and unheard of for the public to stand up to the "powers that be," but the "powers that be" don't care anymore. If a series isn't pulling in shares over a 2 (at least) and viewership drops below 3 million people, it's gone. Actually, the numbers are higher than that, but UPN did wait until Enterprise viewers dropped to 2.5 million.
While it is commendable to protest the show's cancellation and pour money into a lost cause, it would be better to pour money into something like AIDS research and protest against something truly meaningful.
As I've said before, I will miss Enterprise, but its cancellation has given me one bright, shining side effect: once Enterprise finishes its run, I won't have any reason whatsoever to tune into UPN.
And I won't.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
rene Grumman wrote that It Came From Outer Space deserves a director's cut, not a remake ("Outer Space Is Simply Appealing"). She is right about that, however, the director's cut should be in 3-D as the original movie was ... perhaps the movie should even be re-released as a director's cut in the original 3-D. It has been a long time since any movie has been released in such a fabulous format. The 3-D process was so good that it was thought that all movies would soon be released in 3-D. This film and Creature from the Black Lagoon were two of the best!
Stephen LaFevers
stevelafevers(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
