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.
write in to lament the passing of what could be considered the smartest show on television: Carnivàle.
The powers that be at HBO have seen fit to cut this excellent series off at the knees, before any true resolution could be achieved.
What really gets to me is by doing this, HBO has robbed millions of viewers of one of the most smartly written, suspenseful, engaging and just plain beautifully shot series ever to grace the small screen.
Carnivàle was a twisting, frustratingly vague masterpiece that left its audience wanting, no, needing more. I've been a fan of Star Trek. I've spent time in the trenches of Doctor Who geekdom. But never have I seen such devotion to a show like this. One could argue that Trekkers' obsession is unmatched, but let's be honest. Their devotion is to an overall cultural genre, not a specific show, as the many detractors of Enterprise would be evidence.
Show creator Daniel Knauf, his staff and his cast of many brought some intelligence and thought to my TV set every week, for two woefully short seasons.
The decision to cancel Carnivàle shows that HBO's motto of "It's not TV. It's HBO." is just lip service.
I urge fans of the show to contact their local cable outlets and let them know how unhappy you are. And while you're at it, give HBO the message as well.
Jeers!
Dan Ware
[address withheld by request]
was interested to read Mike Serrano's letter ("So Long, and Thanks for Nothing") regarding Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Like Mike, I have been an SF fan since I was a kid. I heard the original HHGTTG radio serial in the 1970s, read the books, bought the vinyl album version, watched the BBC TV adaptation and thought that that was
enough.
Now there's the movie version, finally, and it really sucks. I thought that perhaps I was just too familiar with it all, and although there a few stunning visual moments, the film is deadly dull and predictable. The Australian audience I saw it with were silent throughout, and when the credits rolled everyone shuffled out in silence. It's amazing that an audience in Long Island, on the other side of the world, had exactly the same reaction.
I think the film has a number of fatal problems. Dramatizing what is essentially Douglas Adams' digressive sense of humor is nearly impossible, and showing the book in the context of a movie doesn't work. Stephen Fry does a great job as its voice, but cutting away from the story to have a moment where things are explained kills the action and doesn't help the humor. The other major problem is the fact that much of the movie's target audience already knows the plot and the dialogue, and there are precious few moments when we see or hear anything new.
That may not be a problem for die-hard fans, but judging by the audience reactions described here, there's another factor sabotaging the film, and that's the fact that the jokes are 30 years old. Humor has changed radically since the 1970s, but the jokes and gags in HHGTTG should be in a museum. It has nothing to do with a "British" sense of humor—you just can't expect to go on mining the same material for three decades and expect audiences to laugh. Sadly, that's what's killed this movie.
Andrew Frost
tezby(at)hotmail.com
hough Mr. Lias wishes to put words in my mouth, I am quite certain that I meant "right," not "choice." ("Watching Is a Choice, Not a Right")
The content is not the issue. The issue is the way the contents are presented. And I just love how Mr. Lias put the First Amendment and the realities of corporate patronage on the same level. Thanks, Mr. Lias, for proving the point of my second letter.
I have received a few responses to the letters that I have written. Some are nice. Some are nasty. But I think Mr. Lias' letter is the saddest. An eloquent letter, well thought out, but in the end, just an attempt at a clever manipulation of words to offer a backhanded insult. In spite of Mr. Lias' discussion of choice and the First Amendment, apparently he still feels that one person standing up for their rights and exercising their freedom is just a nuisance.
And in response to Mr. Mogan's letter ("BSG Doesn't Need to Be Kid-Friendly"), I never once said anything about making anything a "kiddie" show. I am fighting my own battle, thank you very much. Leave the kids out of it. Isn't it possible, Mr. Mogan, that you are raging against an ideology that you mistakenly believe that I represent? If so, rage on, but stop putting words in my mouth.
Thank you, dear editor, for allowing me to make a nuisance of myself.
Julie Bicking
bickj(at)hydrosoft.net
must say that I am impressed by the latest twist in Julie Bicking's argument that the SCI FI Channel must bow to her demand that Battlestar Galactica be made kid-friendly ("We Can All Turn Off the TV"). She writes, "I pay a hefty
monthly fee for this medium. Every time I pay my bill, that gives me the right as a consumer to demand quite a lot."
Indeed. As a paying consumer, she has every right to demand that kid-friendly shows be made available to her. I don't know the details of her cable arrangement, but my local provider has no less than three channels specifically reserved for kids' programs as well as an additional channel that is reserved for "family" programming. Go one level beyond basic and you get an additional five channels that specifically cater to family programming.
Ms. Bicking forgets, however, that the rest of us who subscribe to cable also have the authority, as consumers, to demand programming that suits our interests. That includes the right to demand the existence of programming that doesn't necessarily match Ms. Bicking's personal preferences, including channels that have dramatic content which isn't intended for children.
Since most basic cable packages these days have anywhere up to 100 channels of selection, one would suppose that there is enough room on the dial to meet a range of interests. Indeed, that's one of the major selling points of cable and satellite television. Ms. Bicking, however, seems to believe that her voice must be granted special precedence and that her consumer dollars are, in some sense, more valuable than mine. I do not know why she seems to believe this.
In the end, we all vote with our wallets, and our votes are reflected in the ratings as well as in subscriptions. If Ms. Bicking believes that her cable provider isn't offering her a sufficient degree of programming that suits her interests, or if she believes that it is providing programming that is patently offensive to her (although one wonders why she doesn't take advantage of the blocking options that are standard fair these days), she can exercise her vote by dropping her subscription and letting her provider know why. Certainly that's the option that I would take if my provider ever proved timid enough to eliminate channels such as SCI FI for fear of the Ms. Bickings of the world.
Andrew Lias
anrwlias(at)gmail.com
was sitting back at home this evening reading all the bluster and banter about people's right/choice to watch BSG. And I came to the conclusion that the writers of these letters have missed the basic point of the debate. The real question is: Why do the writers of BSG and many other SF (written and television) find it necessary to saturate their stories with colorful language and graphic sexual depictions?
Apparently, the graphic sexual encounters and prolific use of "frack" is distracting to viewers, even to those who defend the use of these things. No one seems to be saying that the show would be less entertaining without them. The defense that someone is trying to impose their moral values isn't really a defense at all. Does the use of "frack" add anything to the show? If they showed Starbuck and Dr. Baltar kissing and beginning to take their clothes off before closing the bulkhead, leaving the viewer to imagine/assume what happens next, would that have taken that much away from the episode? Was it necessary to push the envelope to the point where parents have to decide if they want to allow their teenager to watch?
If it comes to the point where I feel uncomfortable with what I am watching, I will choose to turn it off. Mr. Lias ("Watching Is a Choice, Not a Right") was definitely correct in that assessment. I have the right to choose not to watch. But we also have the right to ask why writers in a genre which has enough trouble getting an audience would wish to alienate any potential fan. Would any of those who do not have a problem with the sex and language turn the channel if there was less of it?
If we are to debate the point, focus on the issue, not on whether or not it is our right/choice or moral obligation.
Matt Seibert
matthew_seibert(at)hotmail.com
n response to Bernadette C. Wilson's idea ("Star Wars Needs a PG Edit") that George Lucas release a special PG re-edit of Episode III—while it indeed might serve to make Lucas more money, there is a far simpler solution: Why don't you go see the PG-13 version first and then decide whether or not it's appropriate for your kids to see? That way,
if there are some darker elements you are concerned about, you could choose to not let them see it or, better yet, discuss the heavier themes with them beforehand so they can view them in context and actually learn something from the experience. If they are such fanatical devotees to the franchise as you state, they certainly must have a good sense of where the story is headed anyway. They'll probably be able to handle whatever Lucas has in store.
In any case, it certainly seems a more constructive method than basing your decision on some arbitrary standards dictated by the MPAA.
Chris DeFilippis
cdeflip(at)yahoo.com
ne more time, we have a potential crime against artistic vision here. In Ms. Bernadette C. Wilson's letter "Star Wars Needs a PG Edit," the lady suggests that Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith needs a cut version in order to be seen by her children.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been told that the PG-13 rating means that parents are "strongly cautioned" about a film's content, in which it's recommended that kids under 13 need to have the company of an adult. That doesn't mean that kids under 13 can't see the movie. Episode III is rated PG-13 only for "sci-fi violence and disturbing images."
We're not talking about any movie. It's the conclusion of a long-running saga, therefore a long time awaited and a great cultural event. It may be more disturbing to the children if they miss the show than seeing a naturally sinister story.
Ms. Wilson: I have a 10-year-old son and we've seen all the films together. Of course my son won't wait another three years to watch the conclusion. Because I know that Lucas will barely hear your prayer (not destroying his overall artistic vision for the sake of a rating, as you said), I recommend you give your kids the chance for the sake of them. If they are geeks in training, I can't believe they will be disturbed by the images as much as they will be hurt if they miss the big event, right now. They will thank you later, I'm positive.
Julius Hernandez
juliushg(at)yahoo.com
'm an Austrian reader of Andreas Eschbach and read your column ("A Face in the Carpet") here:
There is a little thing that bothers me. Quote:
As the trader makes clear, this immobile, seemingly primitive society knows about interstellar flight; everyone knows that the Emperor is half a galaxy away—Eschbach has an irritating habit, shared by lots of non-anglophone SF writers, of describing any group of stars bigger than a breadbox as a "galaxy"—and that aeons have passed without change.
There is another book by Eschbach set in the same universe and it makes quite clear that the empire of the god emperor contains many galaxies.
Eschbach means "galaxy" when he writes "galaxy." Maybe many non-anglophone authors have the habit to describe any group of stars bigger than a breadbox as a "galaxy," however that's not common in German SF (I know no German SF book in which the word galaxy is not used correctly).
Many German SF authors and readers were influenced by the endless German SF series Perry Rhodan (more than 2,200 60-page issues and more than 450 paperpacks with 150+ pages), which uses the real names of galaxies (i.e., Andromeda) and larger structures (i.e., Virgo Cluster) and even gives numbers for travel distances in millions of light-years. (Eschbach wrote one issue for the series as guest author a few years.)
Germans and Austrians are very pedantic where such things are concerned. (Please forgive my poor English.)
Wolfgang Öller
oellerw(at)resi.at
Columnist John Clute responds:
I wonder if Wolfgang Öller could confirm if Eschbach actually said "galaxy" in German. While it's perfectly clear that the venue for The Carpet Makers is vast—the impression is of an overall venue stretching across hundreds of thousands of stars—I just don't think that Eschbach has in fact imagined a galaxy-sized venue encompassing a hundred billion stars, which is thousands of times larger—something like 100,0002, times 10—much less several such venues of this size. The complex immensity of our own galaxy, which is full of star-clumps amply big enough to house several times over the action in this novel, seems to be what his imagination is trying to address. So if he does really think he's describing an empire that reaches across many hundred thousand light-years to dominate many hundred billion stars, maybe he (or his translator) hasn't really conveyed a sense of that immensity, that immensity piled upon immensity.
But I'm happy to stand corrected if he did mean to make that attempt.
Best,
John
read the review of Enterprise's series finale after I saw the show. I disagree with the grade of C-. I think it definitely deserves a grade of D-! I have watched the show since it came on, and I [have] enjoyed [it]. To have the series end as a hologram program is almost as bad as the Dallas [series finale] that was only a dream by one of the main characters. (Am I showing my age there?) [Warning: Spoiler ahead.] Also, to kill off Cmdr. Tripp seemed inappropriate. The scene that he sacrificed himself had no emotion; it really did not make sense to me. I was not moved by his sense of selflessness or dedication to Capt. Archer. I felt anger towards the producers for pulling such a stunt.
Enterprise was a good series, and it deserved more than to be seen in its final episode as a "lab experiment" (as mentioned in the review). I have not heard of anyone enjoying the finale; if there is [anyone], I would love to hear their take on why they enjoyed it so much.
Maybe I missed something, but I doubt it.
Don W. Lyon
dwlyon(at)indiana.edu
could not agree more with D.M. Suydam's ("Fan Opinion Has Never Counted") and Thorsten Wulff's ("Trek's Waters Shouldn't Be Muddied") (and others) comments. Initially I thought that the cast's strong remarks (Jolene Blalock's in particular) ("Producers Defend Enterprise End") about the finale script were attributable, at least in part, to understandable disappointment at the cancellation, frustration with the "suits" and the network, etc., and I planned to take it all with a grain of salt and try to watch the episode with an objective eye.
But after viewing the episode I have no choice but to agree—simply appalling. I think the Enterprise cast was perfectly justified in being ticked off. Further, short of a personal favor to [Rick] Berman and [Brannon] Braga, I'm somewhat surprised that Jonathan Frakes and Mirina Sirtis agreed to participate in what ultimately amounted to little more than a public shot at the Enterprise cast implying that they couldn't even handle their own finale so someone had to bring in members of the "A-list" cast to help them through.
You can bet if the roles had been reversed, Frakes and Sirtis and the core Star Trek: The Next Generation cast would not have been pleased. As a stand-alone episode the concept might have been all right, but as the series finale it was an insult—to the cast, crew and the rest of the non-exec creative team and to the loyal audience. In many ways, I think Enterprise got a raw deal from day one, seemingly sabotaged time and again by their own execs and the network. I look forward to the day some new blood picks up the reigns so inelegantly dropped by Berman and Braga. Soon, I hope.
L. Thompson
[address withheld by request]
find it morbidly fascinating that everyone in the mainstream media—including this publication—keeps ignoring the fact that the Wachowskis were successfully sued by Ms. Sophia Stewart regarding both the creation of the Matrix and Terminator stories as well. (According to Ms. Stewart, they are part of the same storyline.) It is both disingenuous and disrespectful to continue to flaunt Mr. Silver and the Wachowskis as creators of such a pop-culture and sci-fi icon when they are not. Perhaps this is the cause of Mr. Silver's flip-flop regarding future Matrix tie-ins. ("Silver's Matrix Vision Is Blurry")
P.S. For some reason should anyone still be uninformed about the matter, simply type "Sophia Stewart" into your search engine and watch the results!
John Green
JGreen(at)virginmega.com
SCI FI Wire Journalist Patrick Lee responds:
As the editor of the various Matrix stories that have appeared on SCI FI Wire and in Science Fiction Weekly, I can say I have followed Ms. Stewart's lawsuit against the Wachowskis, Joel Silver, Warner Brothers and others closely. I'm not sure what the source of the various Internet reports are as to the suit's outcome—most likely a premature press release
from Ms. Stewart herself—but I can assure you that the lawsuit is far from settled. The suit was filed in April 2003 and is moving through the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:03-cv-02873-MMM-VBK, "Sophia Stewart v. Andy Wachowski et al," and is the
courtroom of the honorable Margaret M. Morrow. Anyone with access to a computer can access the case documents and the official court docket through Pacer: pacer.psc.uscourts.gov, which is the official documents Web site of the U.S. courts. The suit's documents and docket are public record.
Through those documents, any disinterested reader can discover these facts: that the case remains in litigation, that a mediation session is scheduled for late May and that a tentative trial date has been set for July. The case remains in the usual pre-trial phase of motions, discovery, hearings, etc. You can read Ms. Stewart's formal complaint, as well as the various documents and rulings concerning the case. You will also see that the defendants in the case vigorously deny Ms. Stewart's allegations. And you will see that no final decision has been rendered and no settlement has been reached.
Moreover, I have spoken directly with Ms. Stewart's current attorney of record, Michael Thomas Stoller. He confirms that the case remains unresolved and that it continues to be litigated.
The bottom line is that there is no news to report yet concerning this case, which is far from "successful." Also, you should be cautioned about saying that the Wachowskis or Joel Silver did not create The Matrix or that they stole it from Sophia Stewart, unless you yourself have
incontrovertible proof of that fact, because if you are wrong, you have libeled them and are subject to a lawsuit yourself. As always, the caution is: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Best,
Patrick Lee
News Editor
SCI FI Wire
erry Goodkind has once again spoken on the values of individual rights ("Real Freedom Can't Be Granted"). Although his statement included incorrect information, the premise is not incorrect.
So much has been debated both in the world abroad and within the United States to determine exactly what constitutes freedom. There is a distinguishing factor, acknowledged by theologians and politicians alike—semantics.
Many governments today have recognized the value in acknowledging a free state, promulgating statements of "free speech, etc." using language that have the appearance of inherited individual rights. The tiny disclaimer that places the wedge between protected individual rights and a mere statement is the single word used in the Declaration of Independence, established as one of the primary documents the United States established its forthcoming Constitution, and that word is "inalienable." Indeed, here is the quote:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." —Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315
Thomas Jefferson went on to say:
"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124
This is particularly poignant in regards to such documents as the Canadian Charter, where states:
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. —Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms, Constitution Act, 1982 (79)
To this extent, although the subsequent language alludes to various freedoms included as part of the Charter, what isn't included in the text speaks loudly as that which is included: "only to such reasonable limits."
The question then bodes, who decides those limits? Moreover, what constitutes reasonable? These things are not defined in the Charter. In fact, the definition seems to be conveniently absent.
I'm not suggesting that such nations as Canada will fall under dictatorship rule any time soon, but to dismiss such an obvious loophole is to turn a blind eye to the truth.
All law is predicated on the language of legal documents. To the extent that the Canadian Charter allows for the interpretation of "reasonable limits," this opens the door to creating more limits to individual rights. The advantage of the U.S. Constitution is that, coupled with the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, etc., as a citizen I can point to that statement from Jefferson and make the solid argument that my inalienable rights are being violated and my argument has weight.
Whether a nation has the right to free speech or not isn't the core of the issue. The issue is whether or not that nation's government acknowledges that individual rights in an inherent right.
Thank you.
Rosa Broderick
rosabroderick(at)adelphia.net
don't know if this is quite the forum for discussions of a socio-political nature. It is ... but usually in how it relates to sci-fi. Still, novelist Terry Goodkind's recent justification of comments ("Real Freedom Can't Be Granted") he made in an earlier interview were just too curious to let slip by without commenting upon. And I think it does tie into SF and fantasy (bear with me).
In the earlier interview, Goodkind made the erroneous comment that Canadians can be arrested for criticizing their government. When letter-writer Ilya Popov called him on that misinformation ("Canadian Comment Causes Controversy "), Goodkind defended his statement as being "philosophically" correct before grudgingly writing: "I apologize for not being aware that Canada has finally granted its subjects permission to speak freely."
That wasn't so hard, was it? Apology accepted (snide and backhanded though it was).
But Goodkind's broader themes were as intriguing as they were, to my mind, simplistic and rife with bizarre semantical distinctions. Goodkind argues that because the founding principles of America declared the inalienable rights of the individual, then that makes modern American inherently better, freer and more legitimate than any other nation on earth, including nations like Canada which subsequently adopted their own Charters of Rights and Freedoms. Although it makes an interesting academic discussion (like measuring angels on the head of a pin), surely we should concern ourselves with the real-world consequences.
Throughout American history, supposedly "inalienable" rights have been trampled and liberties curtailed. Whatever was proclaimed as self-evident by the founding fathers clearly hasn't always been adhered to—from slavery (which was abolished in Canada, Britain and other such countries decades before it was abolished in the U.S.) to voting rights for women (again, where the U.S. lagged behind some other nations) to the 1950s anti-communist witch hunts to today, with prison camps being filled with thousands accused of terrorism who are locked away without benefit of due process, lawyers or even trials (surely the bedrock of democracy). In fact, per capita, the U.S. imprisons more of its population than any other nation on Earth!
This isn't meant as a petty tally of American injustices. One can certainly do the opposite, listing all the various ways Canada comes up short when compared to the U.S. But that's the point. Founding principles aside, when looking at the two nations (and others besides) no one country has a lock on absolute truth, nor of defending the rights of the individual.
All democratic nations are struggling, through trial and error, to achieve a "just society" (in the words of a Canadian prime minister, Pierre Trudeau) ... and all have a ways to go. Not by balancing the rights of the individual against the rights of the state, as many might think, but by figuring out how the rights of the individual are best ensured. Some Americans would argue the Canadian health care system, in which all are taxed to pay for medical services provided largely free of charge to those who are sick, is an attack on the right of the individual to not support his neighbor, whereas a Canadian might argue a universal health care system is the ultimate protection of the individual's right—the right to a measure of physical security. Likewise, gun laws either attack the individual's right to bear arms ... or defend the individual's right not to be shot in the face by their drunken neighbor.
Goodkind goes on to insist the recent terror attacks on America were an attack on the "inalienable right of the individual," and that Canada (according to Goodkind) does not represent those same ideals which is why it has not been attacked. Yet Goodkind conveniently ignores all the other nations that have suffered the terrorist bomb, and long before America did (and the grim fact that most security experts warn Canada's day will come). There is something comically absurd about imagining Osama bin Laden sitting about a cave with his cronies, yellow highlighter markers in hand, carefully pouring over the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other documents, analyzing which one represents "freedom" and so is the enemy, and which is just a pretender.
The U.S. is a great nation, but a history of inconsistent and occasionally pernicious foreign policies and gunboat diplomacy has far more to do with America becoming an easy (if arguably unjustified) target for bitterness and resentment than any abstract ideas about individual freedom. And the fact that Canada, in general, is guilty of very few of those things is perhaps why it tends not to rank as high on a terrorist's hit list. Besides, the U.S. spends more on its military than any other nation in the world. It is, in the words of Colin Powell, "the bully on the block" and, like all schoolyard bullies, acts as a target for any would-be bully looking to make a rep for himself. If the idea of "liberty" was truly under attack, why then were the 2001 terrorist attacks directed at the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon—symbols of American wealth and military might—rather than directed at symbols of its freedoms and liberties?
Make no mistake, people like bin Laden are enemies of freedom and democracy ... but that does not make the U.S. the only bastion of the same.
How this relates to SF and fantasy (told ya I could connect it) is that SF and fantasy has a tendency to portray things in broad strokes, either just for entertainment or to legitimately deal with issues, but in a reduced-to-its-essence, metaphorical way. And, to be honest, we all enjoy the genre sometimes because of that simplicity. We enjoy when Frodo and Aragorn battle the evil Orcs ... even though, if real, Orcs would no doubt be a complex people, with villainous hardliners, yes, but also moderate reformers, as well as apolitical farmers and craftsman. No doubt, in real life, Frodo could sit down and share a plate of mushrooms with an Orc and, as long as the conversation avoided Mordor and other political hot button topics, he might find the Orc was a decent enough chap ... in an Orcish sort of way. But that wouldn't be as entertaining as having one-dimensional villains at whom we can boo and hiss.
The problem is when those who enjoy reading or watching the genre, and those who enjoy writing it, forget that the real world is more complex, rife with nuance, where things cannot always be reduced to simplistic paradigms. Terry Goodkind's view that a few words about inalienable rights written by a bunch of white, slave-owning men (sorry, catty) on a piece of paper is what, two hundred and some years later, makes one country an "engine that has driven the free world and lifted mankind out of darkness" (America) and another a potential breeding ground for "savagery and unspeakable evil" (Canada) is a simplistic view of reality.
Having those words hasn't always insured Americans truly enjoy liberty and freedom from oppression, nor has not having them necessarily deprived others of liberty.
Would the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exist without the U.S. Declaration of Independence? Would the U.S. Constitution exist if not for the British Magna Carta? Terry Goodkind is right to be proud of America. But semantics aside, and fantasy-inspired simplistic world views of global heroes and villains notwithstanding, wherever they began, now, at the beginning of the 21st century, Canada, the U.S., and many other nations clearly have arrived at similar points. And it shames that constitution, and America itself, when the only way Terry Goodkind can celebrate American values is by misrepresenting the values of others. One suspects Goodkind's issue with Canada may have less to do with his stated belief that its liberties are less secure than America's, and more to do with how Canadians have often applied their liberties in increasingly liberal and left-leaning ways.
Goodkind should welcome nations that join America in having laws establishing rights and freedoms. Instead, he seems to seek to belittle and denigrate those nations. Why? Because he desperately wants to live in a world where America, and he, is the lone hero, battling against villainy, rather than just one among equals? Is the promotion of freedom and liberty of less importance than believing in a storybook fantasy of an increasingly elusive American moral superiority?
D.K. Latta
[address withheld by request]
Back to the top.
