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.
arth Jennings has made Douglas Adams' legacy into the most rewarding satisfaction with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie. Everything about this cinematic retelling of the science-fiction comedy classic works so brilliantly, anyone with the ambition of a sequel or prequel had better put in the best effort to make it as successful. The voice-overs: Stephen Fry as the Book, Alan Rickman as Marvin, Richard Griffiths as Jeltz and Helen Mirren as Deep Thought are four of the wisest casting choices for voice-overs in the decade's sci-fi universe.
I certainly recognized Simon Jones (the original Arthur Dent) in his distinguished cameo. The entire live-action cast are worthy of acclaim. The best performance is Sam Rockwell (who also proved his gift for sci-fi comedy in Galaxy Quest), who was born to play Zaphod Beeblebrox. Even the original actor to breathe life into the galactic wise-ass, Mark Wing-Davey, would dare not disapprove. The special effects used to give him two heads and three arms is a timely improvement. In fact, this redone version of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is as timely as I am sure both War of the Worlds and Batman Begins will also prove to be this year. The late, great Douglas Adams' contribution to the genre has been made paramount for the new generation. Mostly harmless.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
our review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was totally inaccurate. I was in a theater in Long Island full with adults and children, and guess what? Aside from the sound at the theater, you could hear a pin drop. This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yeah, the digital stuff was good, and some of the cast are well known, however, this did not save the movie. I'm a die-hard sci-fi fan (30-plus years) and I was pulling my hair out from boredom.
Let's be honest, this movie was probably a hit for the dry Brits, but for Americans, thumbs down.
Mike Serrano
MSerrano(at)NSHS.edu
wonder if Stan Lee will share any of his "cut of the company's profits from the Spider-Man movies and other projects using Lee's characters" ("Marvel and Lee Settle Suit", News of the Week, May 2, 2005) with Steve Ditko (co-creator of Spider-Man) and the estate of the late Jack Kirby (co-creator of The Fantastic Four, Thor and other Marvel characters).
Without those two artists, Marvel, and Stan Lee, would be no more than sidebars in the history of comics.
'Nuff said.
James Westbrooks
creek77(at)bellsouth.net
egarding "Bad Language Leads to Anarchy" from Julie Bicking:
First of all, Battlestar Galactica deals with what happens after the "end of the world." The survivors are dealing with the destruction of everything they knew, being chased by enemies that want to kill them, crowded into ships not designed for number of people they have to hold and having to cope with shortages of food and water. They are human beings. In a situation like that, cursing and sex are going to happen. To not show that would be to diminish the effectiveness of the show. I dare say there are probably times when you feel like cursing after changing your tenth diaper of the day, too.
Second, you do NOT have the right to "watch Battlestar Galactica and not have someone's wet dreams shoved in your face." You have the right to watch Battlestar Galactica as written, produced, directed and acted by the people involved with the show, telling the stories the way they want to tell them. If you're unhappy with how they do this, you are free to create your own show reflecting how you want the show to be. Or change the channel.
Third, no one is forcing their "lack of morals" on you. You are the one who decides what you watch on television. Steve Martinovich ("Swearing Is the Stuff of Life") is not holding a gun to your head and saying, "You have to watch Battlestar Galactica." And why is it you assume that anyone who disagrees with you has no morals? It sounds like you are the person who needs to grow up and learn to respect the opinions of other people, even when you don't agree with them.
I also agree that freedom belongs to everyone, and that with that comes responsibility. But if the definition of responsibility is to agree with everything Julie Bicking says, then that is definitely not freedom.
Steve Taylor
swtmi(at)ameritech.net
aving followed the running controversy over the "adult content" presented in the new Battlestar Galactica series, I was struck by a glaring anomaly. Apparently, some viewers have no problem allowing their kids to watch a show that routinely features scenes of combat and violent death, a show which depicts spacecraft with hundreds of people on board being blasted to bits and indeed features interplanetary genocide as a major element of its story arc. But allow a few mild cuss words or a bit of substance abuse and suddenly the tots' very souls are in peril! A recent letter writer used the term hypocrisy to refer to advocates of adult themes in sci-fi shows. Hmm ...
Wait, I think I sense a potential plot point here! Not to spoil anything regarding the Cylons' ambiguous motives, but could they be a race of space-faring prudes out to punish humanity for our vulgarity and nasty personal habits? Their reaction certainly couldn't be any more disproportionate than that of some viewers, given that the content of BSG is pretty tame even by broadcast television standards.
Actually, I do agree that the concept of smoking on a spaceship is pretty ludicrous. But then so is the idea of a society that has developed interplanetary spacecraft and still uses anachronisms such as eyeglasses and analog clocks. I guess that the creators were going for atmosphere over realism.
M. Frey
mattgfrey(at)msn.com
n response to "Smoking Is BSG's Smallest Concern": Why can't people just let go of this obsession with race and enjoy the show and the characters the way they are? It's just as racist to denounce a show for its lack of minority characters as it is to "go out of [your] way not to cast any black males."
And what is the basis for that accusation? Do you know for a fact that the casting call included the line "Blacks not wanted?" If a black actor also auditioned for a role and a white actor got the part, would you automatically assume that racism was involved? Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps the actors who got the roles did so because they were better suited for them, not just because they're white? There are so many better things to debate about BSG instead of whining over the absence of affirmative-action casting.
Amy Hill
jacksuerox(at)msn.com
am getting so tired of Mr. Berman's self-serving drivel about how Star Trek needs a rest ("Berman: Trek Needs A Rest"). It's a pathetic diversion from the fact that the only ones who need a rest are Mr. Berman and his erstwhile partner in crime,
Mr. Braga. These gentlemen are, simply put, burned out. Yet they don't want anyone else playing with "their" toy, so they have invented the "franchise fatigue" phenomenon. Not only does it help them avoid any personal responsibility for Enterprise's shortcomings, but it prevents the series from continuing in more capable hands, which would definitely reveal their incompetence and mismanagement.
Look at any weekly television listing. There are umpteen versions of C.S.I. and Law & Order. There are scads of generic reality shows. And Mr. Berman is trying to claim that the market is oversaturated with Trek? I think not. Unfortunately, as Berman is a Hollywood player, numerous media outlets are stumbling over themselves to print and reprint his erroneous opinion, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. Compare and contrast the episodes of season four, which was run primarily by Manny Coto, to season two, which included numerous episodes by Mr. Berman and Mr. Braga. It should come as no surprise that it was during the second season that Enterprise lost the largest portion of its original audience. If there is any lingering doubt as to the questionability of Mr. Berman's opinion, I would suggest that people compare the upcoming Enterprise series finale, which was penned by Mr. Berman and Mr. Braga, to any of the episodes created by Manny Coto, Mike Sussman, or the Reeves-Stevenes. Mr. Berman and Mr. Braga are of the opinion that "These are the Voyages ..." will be viewed as a "valentine" by fans. If the detailed spoilers that abound are accurate, I suspect that most fans will have a slightly different opinion upon seeing the episode.
But when have the opinions of the fans ever mattered?
D.M. Suydam
[email address withheld]
just read the comments by Rick Berman regarding Enterprise ("Berman: Trek Needs A Rest"). Essentially what he is saying is "it can't be our fault that the series didn't do well, it's all the Star Trek reruns." Talk about a stretch. It is very simple why Enterprise was canceled. The Delphic Expanse. The writers created the Expanse so they didn't have to be careful about what storylines they may be screwing up in the future Star Trek world. In other words, they didn't want to put forth the effort to write episodes based on what the series was created for—the early days of Star Trek. Either do a job right or don't do it at all. Also since he brought it up, Nemesis was not a fine movie. It was garbage. It was no surprise when most of the key cast members swore that they were done with Star Trek after Nemesis.
If his next project is not a success, will it be because Gilligan's Island is on in too many markets?
John [last name withheld]
johnmac328(at)hotmail.com
t's been a pleasure to see the current interest in the BBC's new Doctor Who series in the letters page, but I thought I should correct a few misconceptions and errors.
In issue #419, Keith Kitchen said ("The Oldest Doctor Is Incomplete") he believed the classic Doctor Who series was complete from the second Doctor onward. Sad to say, the second Doctor's era is the one most depleted by the BBC's ludicrous policy of destroying episodes to make room in their archives. Very few of his episodes exist in anything other than soundtrack form. The majority of the first Doctor's adventures remain intact.
Nathan Brazil's letter in issue # 415 ("Who Is Actually Good—Who Knew?") does a disservice to two very talented actors. Nathan gives the impression that the new series is doomed by the "sudden" departure of Christopher Eccleston. In truth, Eccleston had only ever signed on for one season, a fact that was common knowledge among Who fans before Nathan's letter was published. The BBC have since admitted that they fabricated the statements in which they stated Eccleston was quitting because he feared being typecast, for reasons no one can adequately explain. They have also admitted that they did not consult the actor before releasing the statements.
The BBC have recently confirmed that the new actor chosen for the role, David Tennant, was chosen months previously to their announcement that Eccleston was stepping down. It's clear that, since Tennant was chosen to replace Eccleston before the first season had even premiered, this was a strategy designed to promote interest in the new show. Launching it with a
high-profile, respected character actor like Christopher Eccleston would get the press and the public interested in the show, and once it had become a ratings success and generated a solid viewer base, the lead actor could be swapped out for someone a little less expensive, but more willing to stay with the role for the long term. Considering Nathan describes Eccleston as
selfish, and accuses him of actions bordering on sabotage, it seems Mr. Brazil might owe the actor an apology.
Nathan also casts aspersions at David Tennant, describing him as "currently flouncing around on British screens [as] Casanova." Tenant's performance as the Great Lover has earned him critical acclaim and considerable attention, and far from "flouncing," he has played him as a funny, attractive "lad on the town," with just the right touch of swagger. Tennant also gained
recognition for his role as Briscoe in the recent live broadcast of The Quatermass Experiment. He is a lifelong fan of Doctor Who, having already appeared in a number of Who-related audio plays, including the "Dalek Empire" series from Big Finish and the "Scream of the Shalka" Web broadcast. Unlike Eccleston, who took the role as a career move to demonstrate his range and shake off his dour image, Tennant is genuinely interested in being the Doctor, and may well be the first actor in the role to have a fan's understanding of what it is he's taking on.
Chris Halliday
otherchris(at)erols.com
n response to Mr. Kitchen's message ("The Oldest Doctor Is Incomplete") on Doctor Who, I
would direct him and anyone else interested in the current series, the original series and the latest efforts to bring the classic episodes to DVD to the following excellent sites:
Outpost Gallifrey: www.gallifreyone.com/
And the Doctor Who Restoration Team Website: www.restoration-team.co.uk/
Additionally, Mr. Kitchen is, regrettably, incorrect in his assessment of the completeness of the collection of Doctor Who episodes. In addition to the missing and incomplete first-Doctor stories, there are only 8 of 21 complete second-Doctor stories. The most recent complete story recovered by the BBC was "Tomb of the Cyberman," returned from Hong Kong (not Japan).
The SCI FI Channel apparently found the new series "lacking." (Why is beyond me, as it has been blessed with stellar ratings in the U.K. and Canada.)
There have been nearly 30 stories released on Region 1 DVD.
Finally, the reasoning behind BBC America's not picking up the new series is (to me at least) murky at best, but it appears to be an issue of expense and possibly audience reach.
Let's hope that someone over here in the U.S. will eventually come to their senses and decide that broadcasting the new series of Doctor Who (which has been renewed for a second series) would be an excellent idea and do so.
David Brauner
mozart827(at)yahoo.com
lya Popov's letter ("Canadian Comment Causes Controversy") completely misses my point, but it does accidentally serve to prove it. I was speaking of broad philosophical themes. The context of my comments had to do with my writing and how it relates to those philosophies that shape the course of societies and nations.
The United States was founded on the bedrock philosophical principle that an individual has the right to exist for his own rational ends. For this reason, the U.S. Constitution is unique in the history of mankind. Moral law is based on this fundamental right of an individual to their own life. Thus, murder is the ultimate violation of another individual's right to exist. The United States Constitution is a citizen's protection from the government—based on this same objective principle. Because the Constitution codifies this basic philosophical principle, individuals have, among other things, the right to speak freely against the government.
Canada passed a law giving its citizens permission to speak freely (the law referred to was passed in 1982 and merely gives permission to speak freely as long as what is said does not violate Canadian law). A number of countries have "granted" (to quote Popov) their subjects permission for this and various other rights. The crucial difference is that in the U.S. it is not a law (permission) that exists at the whim of politicians. There is a huge difference. Such laws "granting" freedoms imply that those freedoms are a gift of the state. Therein lies the abyss.
For a government to "grant" permission for an individual to speak is to presuppose that the government is the source of rights, therefore, an individual can have no inalienable rights. This is the relevant core issue I was addressing, not what particular table scraps a state throws its subjects. Don't forget, such legal permission can be revoked by the state. A free individual does not need to have moral rights "granted" to him by a government. To accept that any state has the moral right to "grant" rights and freedoms to its subjects is to embrace collectivism. Down that road awaits savagery and unspeakable evil.
Ilya Popov's letter is a red herring. I apologize for not being aware that Canada has finally granted its subjects permission to speak freely. But what particular law might have been passed or repealed in any country is not pertinent to the issue of how societies are founded and history shaped as a direct result of broader philosophical movements. Canada has a great many good and decent people, and I'm happy for them that their government has given them permission to speak freely. However, that is very different than the vital concept of the inalienable right of the individual to live his own life as he sees fit. It is this elemental principle which forged the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. It is this principle which founded a nation. It is the torch of this fundamental freedom which has changed the course of human history. It is the light of this bright flame which has lifted the darkness and despair from oppressed people all over the world. It is the strength of this philosophy alone which has broken the chains of slavery for untold millions of people who otherwise would still be enslaved. And even Canada, because of our clear example of the ethical value of liberty upon which America was founded, has come to grant its people the right to speak freely. But you cannot compare a patchwork of circumscribed permission in any other country to the concept of the inalienable right of the individual to his own life, as recognized by the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, because it is that singular noble human ideal that has been the engine that has driven the free world and lifted mankind out of darkness and oppression.
It is this—the concept of the fundamental freedom of the individual—that draws bitter hatred and resentment from the champions of every festering form of tyranny all around the world. Ask yourself, why do these people hate that we are free? Why do they lust to change that, or to see us destroyed? And don't fool yourself for a moment—our belief in that inalienable right of the individual to exist for his own sake is the object of the hatred and the heart of the issue. This is why Canada is not hated for granting its subjects the right to speak freely, but we are hated for our freedom. Those who hate freedom understand the difference.
Don't get me wrong, within our own country many different factions embrace the same basic opposing collectivist philosophy—that an individual owes his life to others: a state, or a group, or a deity, or anything else that mob rule decides. We have had and will continue to have petty dictators in every branch of our government who hate that we have this basic freedom. These enemies of individual liberty work constantly to erode the principles upon which this country was founded. The attacks on the individual's right to exist are relentless, and are made possible by that very freedom they wish to destroy. True freedom—the rationale that identifies it as a fundamental and essential human value—must be understood if it is to be defended, and defended if it is to survive. Once our individual freedom is lost, we become nothing more than the property of the state or a group, and that state or group will be the one to decide what freedoms it will "grant." State permission is not the same thing as true freedom. History has shown that without the inviolate moral wall of the right of the individual to his own life, the bloodletting is beyond nightmarish. In the last century alone, well over 100 million individuals were murdered by states that believed that the individual had no right to exist for his own sake—that life belonged to the state and its ends, and that the state alone could dictate those ends.
What horrifies me is that there are those today who harbor a murderous lust to bring us all to heel, to wipe this rational Constitutional principle from existence, and allow savage irrationality to once again run wild so that they can attempt to prove that if they just spill enough blood, and sacrifice enough lives, they can enforce their particular form of phantom utopia on those left alive. Unless you comprehend that life and death is what is ultimately at stake in this struggle of philosophy, you slip the chains around your own neck without even realizing it—until it is too late. This is the basic human struggle about which I write.
My comment in the interview regarding the U.S. Constitution was in the context of that philosophical principle of inalienable individual rights as opposed to all forms of statist rule in the shaping of societies, and thus the history and future of mankind. This reader obviously doesn't grasp the issue or what is truly at stake or else doesn't want you to.
In Freedom's Light,
Terry Goodkind
Back to the top.
