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.
eading this week's "Cassutt Files" ("The Soundtrack of Your Future Life"), with the reference to Close Encounters of the Third Kind, reminds me of an old interview with [Steven] Spielberg I once read. He was asked, a number of years after he had become a very successful producer and director, if there was anything he would change in any of his films. His response was that he'd consider CE3K (remembering this is the man who had, at the time, run from the heights of Schindler's List and Raiders of the Lost Ark through to the depths of 1941): "If I could do it again," he said (or words to this effect), "I would change the ending of CE3K. At the time I made it, I had no children. I never appreciated that a father could never leave his kids behind."
As a fan of the movie, who read the quote after having children, it resonated with me.
Ian Garland
ian(at)gghome.net
he science-fiction and fantasy world has certainly lost a wonderful friend in author Andre Norton. She was most famous for such works as the popular Witch World and Time Traders series. Her death, from congestive heart failure, came at her home in Murfreesboro, Tenn., at age 93, on March 17th. It is a relief to also receive the report that her death came peacefully in her sleep at about 2:30 a.m.
She was born Alice Mary Norton on Feb. 17, 1912, in Cleveland, Ohio. Ms. Norton produced more than 130 books, in many genres, during her long and highly successful career of nearly 70 years. She was indeed a wonderful inspiration to other authors, and always encouraged them to continue with their writings.
Ms. Norton used her male pen name, and also made her legal name in 1934, because she expected to be writing mostly for young boys. Up until recent years young males were basically disinclined to read anything written by a female author. The famous Harry Potter series author, J.K. Rowling, used only her initials for the same reason.
The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America [SFWA] recently created the Andre Norton Award for young-adult novels, and the first award will be presented in 2006. Ms. Norton was the first woman to receive the Grand Master of Fantasy Award from the SFWA in 1977, and she won the Nebula Grand Master Award in 1984. Her last complete novel, Three Hands of Scorpio, is set to be released in April.
Thank you, Andre Norton, for all of your many years of fascinating reading. We will certainly miss you, dearest friend.
Jeff Redmond
redmondjeff(at)hotmail.com
ith the success of prequels seeming to reign supreme over sequels these days, I could not help but wonder what a prequel to The Lord of the Rings would be like. I have just read in this week's newsletter about Peter Jackson's planning to shoot a prequel in the next three years ("Jackson: Hobbit A Ways Off").
So the question is: With the success of Mr. Lucas' Star Wars prequel revealing the dark metamorphosis of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader, can Mr. Jackson be as successful with The Hobbit? Perhaps with the failure of Enterprise as a prequel to the original Star Trek, we might want to be a little more careful. But I think that a prequel to The Lord of the Rings at some point might stand as good a chance as Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith. Which could be more successful, in all fairness? Smeagol's dark metamorphosis seemed clear enough already with the opening of the Oscar-winning The Return of the King. Speaking of dark metamorphoses, one that I expect to have almost as profound an impact as Star Wars III is Batman Begins. I agree that some prequels are somewhat succeeding where some sequels are failing. The Hobbit will, in due time, have its day, and no one other than Peter Jackson should stand a chance of pulling it off.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
ho says actors don't use makeup in today's films? And who says Jessica Alba has done and will do only one SF role? She's blond in The Fantastic Four, and a completely different person than the Dark Angel. What is she, a female Lon Chaney?
Stan Lee exhibited awe about the [Fantastic Four], appropriately marveling at its effect as a medium as compared to comics. He was very enthusiastic about the outcome of the production.
Will Science Fiction Weekly be giving the film some big writeups? I hope to see some additional information before the film [premieres].
John Thiel
thiel(at)dcwi.com
recently received the Star Trek DVD collection (season one). I was in grade school during the early '70s, when the show was first syndicated, and it captivated me from the start. Having watched several of the episodes, I believe that they've been censored a bit!
For example, in "Charlie X," I distinctly remember Kirk patting Yeoman Rand on the butt, and then Charlie imitates him. The scene when Kirk pats her is missing. On "City on the Edge of Forever," it seems like they cut away before Kirk and Edith have their first kiss.
Have you encountered other occassions like these? I have not watched every episode yet, and apparently the season-three interracial kiss was not censored, according to [Science Fiction Weekly's] review. But this certainly makes me suspicious.
Please let me know if I'm correct, or if my memory fools me.
Paul Miles
mpmiles(at)gsb.uchicago.edu
watched the original Star Trek show every week when it first aired. I was sad to see it go but delighted to see Star Trek: The Next Generation. It was actually a better show than the original. Deep Space Nine was a good departure from the ship-based show and was just as well executed as TNG, but it was never really taken seriously by the "faithful." When Voyager came on it was a new direction that returned the world of Star Trek back to its roots—"to seek out new worlds ..." Now along came Enterprise, and it started out as a rebirth of the Trek world, but too many people compared it to the original Star Trek and TNG and didn't like what they saw. They didn't warm to the show or really give it a chance, and, to be honest, some of the storylines really were not very good. When TNG came on the scene, there were not that many sci-fi shows out there. Now there is a whole network on cable, with many more shows on the broadcast networks all fighting for the same group of people. Enterprise simply couldn't compete; it lost viewership early and never regained or built on what they had left from Voyager.
Some people are not going to like what I say next. The last show of Voyager was so bad it soured me on the Trek world. TNG had a great ending; spinning out of the poker game was a great idea. The end of DS9 was adequate. Voyager's was a frelling mess. They had time cops who policed time throughout Voyager's run, yet Janeway was allowed to come back and "set things right"? I'm terrified at what the end to Enterprise will be. If it ends on a very good episode that ties up the show and provides a good segue into Star Trek, fine. They might have a chance to lay low for a while, then perhaps come back, but if it ends as poorly as Voyager did, that could well be the nail in the coffin. The recent comments that Jolene Blalock made recently reported in the "News" section ("Blalock Disses Enterprise") don't bode well. The sad part of it is this was actually the best season of the whole series.
Gary Roelli
gjwr(at)excite.com
n an effort to turn the glaring eye of immediacy from Enterprise's imminent ending and the fascinating-yet-incredulous fervor over secondhand smoke in Battlestar Galactica, I have a single, searing question to ask which will guide the rest of this letter: What happened to the resurrection of the Irwin Allen series?
It's been several years now since Science Fiction Weekly and SCI FI Wire reported that efforts were underway to revive all four of the classic Irwin Allen 1960s TV series: Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea, Lost In Space, The Time Tunnel and Land of the Giants. Since that time, an unaired pilot for The Time Tunnel was filmed, rejected and bootlegs have been available on eBay. Science Fiction Weekly had reported that an actress had been chosen to portray Judy Robinson, then nothing.
Now, in 2005, with Battlestar Galactica pulling in monster ratings and the Star Trek franchise about to leave the air for the foreseeable future, when the time is right for the return of these shows: nothing.
I'm not about to claim that the resurrection of these shows would be earth-shatteringly excellent or even remotely good. It's just that in the rush to snub Enterprise and slam Galactica before it could even air, these shows and everything about them were lost in, err, space. ...
What, pray tell, happened?
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
n response to those who have commented ("Galactica's Frak Is an Homage", "Frak Is Frellin' Fantastic") on my original "frak" post ("Galactica's Cursing Is Frakked"), a few things to note about me: First, I was a big fan of the original BSG, and watched it pretty faithfully. (Even when I watched Dirk Benedict later on The A-Team, I still called him Starbuck.) I was/am also very aware of frak's origins and it's use on the original series.
Even some of the best sci-fi has an element of cheesiness. (I love Star Trek the original series, and it's full of charming, cheesy moments.)
However, the moments of campiness that I have personally found charming and endearing in Star Trek TOS, Star Wars, Aliens, etc., I did not find charming on BSG back in the day.
Not only did I feel that the campiness of the original series was unendearing, but I felt that it actually undercut the compelling elements of the plotline and betrayed the sense that the show was trying to be much more than just "Star Wars meets Buck Rogers in the 25th Century."
To me the BSG mythology was, and is, a great premise from which to tell a story of human survival, but it's one that I've always felt would be best served by a darker, more serious tone, a la Alien.
I know that many old-school BSG fans will disagree with my views on this, but hey, it's a free country (for the most part).
When I first saw the new BSG, I loved it, and it was obvious that it had been changed to a darker tone, which I found personally satisfying. But when I heard "frak" used in the dialogue, it just stood out to me as something that didn't at all fit into what they were trying to do with the show, and I personally feel, that even though it hearkens back to the original series, and is enjoyable to many of the original-series fans, it is something to me that seems out of place and out of character in the new show.
The new show still has a few cheesy elements, but I feel that they've resurrected a great premise and have given it a wonderful new identity, one which takes itself much more seriously, just as it should have from the beginning.
Secondly, I do not feel that profanity adds depth to dialogue.
To the contrary, I believe that the mark of a superior writer is the ability to express intense, serious emotion and meaning without using it.
I was simply commenting on the fact that a lot of writers do add those words in order to give their dialogue an "edge." To me it seems silly to think that in this day and age, that people would buy into the use of "frak" as a space-age substitute for the "F-bomb," or any other curse word.
It may have been convincing or even endearing back when it was used on network TV back in 1979-1980, but I don't think it hits the target on cable in 2005.
Third, thanks for all of the response, it's nice to know that there are lots of passionate fans out there who love sci-fi, and love to talk about it.
I'm sure most all of us agree on this: that we'll be camped out in front of the TV for SCI FI Fridays.
Juan Cox
JCox(at)gja.net
o those worried about the smoking on Battlestar Galactica: Get a life.
To begin, this is a sci-fi show, based on some other world. You actually have no idea if what they smoke is tobacco or even a carcinogen at all, it isn't mentioned as to exactly the nature of what it is that they do smoke. Second, to those who worry about the message that is sent to children, television is not meant to be a babysitter. If you aren't going to sit with your children to watch a particular program, then turn it off. There are channels specifically set up to be watched by children that have all the "offensive" things removed and the world is all squeaky clean and homogenized for your approval. In the real world, people smoke, drink, fight, swear and probably a thousand other things that you wish to protect your children from, but the reality is that the sooner the child is confronted with these images and a discussion is opened up, the easier it is to teach the standards you want to instill in your child.
So many people are on a non-confront basis with today's issues when it comes to their children, it is absolutely amazing their aren't more problems than there already are because a child isn't being taught about the dangers. You just refuse to let them see it, and they won't know how to handle [these situations] when they do occur. I realize how rabid the anti-smoking lobby is today, as well as the issues with health, cancer and secondhand smoke ... yada yada yada, ad infinitum, but at some point you just have to say, "Shut the hell up with your politicizing and issues, and just watch the show!"
Terry Thrasher
terrythrasher(at)covad.net
was a fan of the original BSG and enjoy watching the current show. However, I do have one slight problem with it. Is it logical that a race who has developed faster-than-light travel should be so primitive in other areas? Or at least no more advanced than we Earthlings are? If not for the spaceships, this show could very well be taking place right on Earth. Maybe that is the point, to show that we are very similar, but I just have a problem with how low-tech they appear in other areas, such as medicine and even in fashion. (I just don't see how they could have the same fashion sense as we do.)
I'm also a bit confused about the Cylons' motivation. Do they hate humans, or do they want to become human? Do they want to "convert" the colonists into their monotheistic beliefs, or do they feel that they are doing their "god's work" by eliminating the human race? If they hate humans, then why would they create a branch of their race that can perfectly mimic human physiology? I have a feeling that some of the Cylons are closer to human than their leaders may like.
Derrick Fannin
floydkentuckyguy(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
