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.
eing the fact-concerned citizen of Canada that I am, I am led to wonder, as pertains to your recent interview with Mr. [Terry] Goodkind, why it is that no one managed to check his facts, and point out that his statement about Canada—"In Canada, for example, you can be arrested for saying anything against the government" is categorically incorrect, and in fact an offensive remark, suggestive of a gross amount of ignorance about basic history and facts.
We've a law in Canada, called the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," which grants us, among other things, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication." All of which can be read in detail at the following URL: laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/
The details published there will make it quite clear that Mr. Goodkind's statements about Canada are blatantly false. I think it perhaps Science Fiction Weekly's responsibility to alert their readers to any factually incorrect statement that may have been published on their site.
Thank you for your time,
Ilya Popov
ilyapopov(at)comcast.net
ead through your list of pilots. Excuse me, but haven't we seen all these shows before? With digital technology progressing by leaps and bounds, the day is right around the corner when we can Frankenstein "new" pilots out of long-dead TV series' by cutting, pasting and, if necessary, coloring the original tapes. Imagine, instead of his faithful companion, Tonto, the Lone Ranger teamed up with the Lost in Space robot.
You don't know where I could hook up with an agent on this, do you?
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
f I read nothing else on your site for the week, I read the letters. Letters stimulates thought, impulses and sheer fun.
Let the fans continue to riot!
Patricia Crouch
latte4wisewoman(at)yahoo.com
n response to Stewart Tame's letter ("The New Who Should Make House Calls") as to whether or not SCI FI ever considered airing the original Doctor Who series: For a short time, it did!
Unfortunately, it was before I had access to the SCI FI Channel, but I used to greedily and jealously check the listing in TV Guide to see what was being aired on SCI FI. If I remember correctly, it was aired in the late morning or early afternoon, usually in 90-minute blocks.
I can honestly say that it wasn't the entire series, because, unfortunately, the entire series no longer exists. It's ghastly, but true. This is the sad result of the BBC not having enough room to store everything it ever aired. The prime casualty is the first Doctor, with a number of his episodes having been destroyed. Not all of them, to be sure, but too many. A number of years ago, part of one of the missing episodes (2 or 3 segments, I believe) turned up in Japan, much to everyone's surprise, but this was an exception, not the rule.
To the best of my knowledge (and, I'll admit, my knowledge is sketchy at best), the series is complete from the second Doctor through the eighth, but please do not hold me to that! I do have to wonder why the portions of the series that are complete haven't been released on DVD. Bob knows there's a market out there!
As for the SCI FI Channel not picking up the new Doctor Who, your guess is as good as mine, yet I'll venture it has to do with the old moneybag. SCI FI is currently investing in enough new series to fill up several nights of original programming, and that's probably the explanation.
What does surprise me is that BBC America hasn't picked it up, for reasons that shouldn't need explaining.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
t's been a long time since I wrote in so I thought I'd chime in to let everyone know I'm still around.
I've been reading these past few weeks with a mix of curiosity and disgust about the various things we look to bother ourselves with in the SF realm.
First, Star Trek: Enterprise. Who really believed that handing over $3.4 million to a bunch of out-of-touch studio executives would get them what they want? ST fans amaze me more and more every year. They keep going to further and further lengths to prolong this aging, worn-down franchise. There's enough material out there between comics, novels, graphics, fan films, ad infinitum to keep any sane person busy for years to come. You can consume Star Trek merchandise and stories for years and not run out. Are the novels and such less relevant than TV? Are you really trying to show the world that one television show is worth that much of their hard-earned money?
I enjoy many TV shows. I'll sign petitions if they are threatened with cancellation. But money is too much. Hungry people could use it. Homeless people could use it. If you've got enough money to waste on a crappy show, you've got too much.
Adrian J. Hunter
josephusz(at)rocketmail.com
appreciate Ron Hall's points ("Saving Shows Is an Obsession")—on the one hand, that we may be overly obsessed with TV shows if we are driven to mount campaigns and send money to fund them (why not put the effort into saving the environment, abandoned animals or victims of war, for example?); and, on the other hand, that TV networks are in the business of making money and they do so almost solely through advertising rates based on ratings.
However, I think he misses a major point, which is that fans are motivated by something other than ratings in their efforts to make their voices heard when shows they like—shows that are high in quality and feature imaginative writing, strong acting and so forth—are canceled. It's particularly frustrating when an exciting show suffers from irregular scheduling and a short run and then is canceled—Firefly certainly springs to mind. Fans are often just trying to improve the overall quality of shows on television.
I was particularly taken aback, though, by Mr. Hall's question: "And since when did we become smarter than the TV executives?" Well, I for one don't automatically assign intelligence to anyone based on a job description. (OK, I might be swayed by "theoretical physicist"), and, based on job performance, it might well be that some of us are smarter than some television executives! (Like those at the SCI FI Channel that schedule slimy critter horror flicks every weekend—ugh!)
But I still have to (reluctantly) concede his point—television executives are smart enough to know that ratings drive their decisions, just as publishers know that sales figures drive their decisions. So what we see and what we read will continue to be determined by the majority's choices—and sometimes we get lucky, sometimes we don't.
Elizabeth Jewell
elizabethjewell(at)sbcglobal.net
egarding the letter "Saving Shows Is an Obsession":
I can't help but wonder if the gentleman who wrote that letter is himself connected with upper management in the entertainment industry, or possibly a professional critic of that same industry? How else to explain the very flawed conclusions expressed. (Don't take offense yet, hear me out.)
First, the statement that fans have "an obsession or possibly even an addiction" has been expressed by so-called experts since the days of I Love Lucy. Certainly taken to extreme, anything is bad for you, but to the TV industry, obsession of a sort is counted on. Without that obsession, no show would last longer than the pilot. Viewers that wish to vicariously have adventures in their favorite show's universe, or follow the adventures of their favorite characters, are what keep a series on the air. And this is not limited to television: How many readers wait for the next novel by David Drake, set in the Hammers Slammers universe? Or collect every one of Robert Heinlein's novels, to read over and over. How many people collect NASCAR memorabilia? How many follow their favorite sports team?
For example, I was as sorry to see Babylon 5 end as the next fan, and would love to see it come back in any form, but when it ended, I moved on ... that's life.
The second point, "since when did we become smarter than the TV executives":
Oh please! Are you serious?!
If the executives (here on referred to as "suits") were so savvy, then why did Gene Roddenberry have to sell the original Star Trek as "Wagon Train to the stars"? Because the suits could understand a western, but were completely lost regarding sci-fi. If suits are so in tune to their audience, then M*A*S*H shouldn't have lasted past the first season, due to its poor initial ratings. How many battles did J. Michael Straczynski fight to keep Babylon 5 on the air? It's considered a classic now, but it came so close to not making the five-year run, that a final episode was scripted for the fourth year in case it wasn't picked up.
The fans ultimately dictate what they want, and why not: Are they not the end user that these shows are made for? For proof, check out Stargate SG-1: How many years, and still going strong, still popular?
And as to stockholders and corporate boards: They want profits, pure and simple. If a show is popular and merchandising takes off, then they're happy to heck with the format of the show. That's precisely the reason why they pick suits that, in their minds, make "good business decisions." Why do you think we see so many sitcoms that appear to be copies of Cosby? They want that safe investment that maximizes profits.
And that's precisely the reason Star Trek has such a hard time coming up with new ideas: because new ideas are a risk the suits won't take financially.
John Williams
phoenix76521(at)yahoo.com
egarding "Swearing Is the Stuff of Life" from Steve Martinovich:
First, Steve wrote: "Whether any of us like to curse or watch sexual themes is beside the point, it happens in the real world." So what? Since when is a television show "real life"? Even the so-called "real-life" shows are over-dramatized for effect, or done in a number of takes and edited. When someone follows me around for a week and films me changing diapers 10 times a day and people actually care to watch, then talk to me. Television shows are supposed to be for "entertainment," remember? But hey, if you want to sit around watching CNN 24-7, be my guest.
Second, he said, "If you don't like the show, then watch something else. You're not going to stop bad language and viewing sexual themes because you don't like to see them." Uh ... excuse me, but yes we can. That's the magic of editing. And as for watching something else, I have just as much right to watch Battlestar Galactica and not have someone's wet dreams shoved in my face as you have the right get the Playboy Channel. Duh. ...
Third, what really gets me about people like Steve Martinovich is how incredibly hypocritical they are. In spite of all their moaning and defensive arrogance—"Leave the rest of us alone to watch what we like, and don't try to force your idea of morals on the rest of us"—they certainly have no problem forcing their lack of morals on the rest of us. Hmmm ... Steve, who were you saying had to grow up?
Sincerely, a person who believes that freedom belongs to everyone and with that freedom comes responsibility. Anything else is anarchy and arrogance.
Julie Bicking
bickj(at)hydrosoft.net
his is what upset you about the new Battlestar Galactica? "Smoking?" I was so looking forward to the new BSG. I loved it as a kid and was totally looking forward to what they were going to do.
But now, this show has completely, and I mean completely, even with the exception of the two females, [been] white-washed. This show was about brotherhood and friendship after losing everything else. The old drama had two black male characters, both good, and played a part in the way that I saw the world. Black and white as friends, surviving when everything else was lose.
The new series: Ron Moore went out of his way not to cast any black males. Out of all of the males on this show, none are black and [there's] only [one] black female. We see her less than we saw the Uhura character on the first Star Trek. This show has been on for, what, 13 weeks? And I can't even see her having a combined 15 minutes' worth of air time. [How] you can have so many people on a show and none of them are a black male, when [even] the old show has two strong black characters? And that is not even including the minor guest roles. I hate the idea of smoking, too. But I am more upset at the way that Ron Moore made a clear point to not cast any black male characters.
Max [last name withheld]
BloodCold(at)aol.com
ow I'm confused. I read Annette Hunt's "Stargate's End Betrays True Fans" letter, felt her pain, and, while not giving up on the show, did feel that something had gone terribly wrong. The reaction to her letter surprised me. Tina Good ("Stargate's End Is Timeless") writes, "Perhaps I'm misreading it and it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but my first reaction was—Has Ms. Hunt actually watched the finale? But maybe I'm being too harsh ... perhaps she missed the actual ending?"—and the others also suggested the same. I swear I watched it through; I have it on tape and can re-watch it. I have missed the point at which the alternate-world characters (and I actually did find them rather appealing, as such) who went back into time and saved the day became re-transformed into the originals. At what point did this happen? Never mind the fact that the acknowledged time-line must have gone on with the originals in order for the Atlantis series, etc., to continue.
Yes, they all went fishing at Jack's pond, but as far as I could see, while all were as cheerful as though nothing had ever happened, I never noticed that they weren't the "geeky" set. (Did Teal'c re-grow his hair?—I'll have to rerun the tape.) At what point in that episode did they revert?
Ross Chamberlain
rossworx(at)cox.net
Back to the top.
