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.
have been waiting to see if Science Fiction Weekly would do any kind of review of Michael Crichton's latest novel, State of Fear, and have been disappointed that one has not been forthcoming. While not Crichton's best work, it is very thought-provoking and asks the pivotal question that no one seems to care about regarding the issue of global warming. Where is the evidence that it is a problem?
Before having a knee-jerk reaction to the above statement, I suggest that those individuals that feel strongly either way read this novel. The excellent footnotes, charts and bibliography will have the truly interested reader studying the issue for a long time. Most importantly, the author's notes about the dangers of science becoming politicized (see http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/) are very poignant.
I actually find Crichton's comments about how his opinion changed on the issue far more interesting than the novel itself. This novel, like so many of Crichton's later works, reads like the early drafts of a screenplay, with the now-formulaic strong female character and the brainy male lead she has to save from himself. And no matter how easily this novel could be adapted to the big screen, I doubt that Hollywood will touch it, as it goes against the established mantra that global warming is a problem.
Rick Sala
ricksala(at)comcast.net
hanks for the review of the [Tomorrow People] DVD set. I would never have known that it was out if not for [reviewer] Adam-Troy Castro. This show was one of my favorites when I was a child and cable TV was just catching on. Here's a suggestion for the SCI FI Channel: Get the rights to it and make some of us happy!
Todd [last name withheld]
weyrleader(at)charter.net
n light of recent discussions about sex on sci-fi shows, I'd like to pose a question about The 4400. In the episode aired June 19, there was a sexual encounter between the character Jordan Collier and his newest conquest/keyholder. During the scene, Jordan's exposed rear was blurred out, while his companion's bare breast was left exposed. (Granted, it wasn't as bare as Janet Jackson's, but it was pretty close.)
I personally would have preferred to see neither, but I'm having a problem understanding why female nudity is OK, but male nudity is not. Doesn't that seem like a double standard?
Susan Brady
wreckerkid777(at)yahoo.com
want to compliment [reviewer Patrick Lee] on [his] review of the newly released Batman Begins. It is clear from your review that you understand comic books and characters, in general, and Batman in particular. You really nailed it when you said the movie is about a man who rises to the occasion by paying the dues to become a true hero—without X-ray vision, without spider sense, without a vast power triggered by a cry of "Flame on!" Batman is someone who, scarred by tragedy, rejects lashing out vengefully and instead chooses to make a difference for the better.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Rather than just striking out in a self-defeating way (as Bruce Wayne almost did in dealing with Joe Chill), he chooses instead to become the best he can be, to fight evil on a level that is inspiring, awesome and, ultimately, effective. Did you check out the criminals' panic when Batman made his first appearance at the dope delivery? Nothing else ever scared those guys—not guns, not the law, not the police, not the courts—but when Batman started doing the Ninja Dark Knight thing, those folks wanted their mommies! That is what Batman is truly about: making a difference for the better.
I was never satisfied with any of the previous Batman movies for the simple reason that none of them indicated that the people making the movies really understood all of this. It looked to me that the Tim Burton films were more about Tim Burton's arthouse self-indulgence than about the Batman that we saw in Batman Begins. Likewise, Joel Schumacher's efforts were good attempts, but they fell short—particularly by veering too far off into humor. My first remark following my first viewing of Batman Begins was that we had just seen the first and only Batman film ever made.
I cannot thank everyone involved for the marvelous work they put into making Batman Begins. I am 53 now and still love comic books—especially Batman comic books—but, down deep, I am still that 7-year-old little boy living in Cleveland, Ohio, during the late '50s. Whenever the sirens sounded at night, I just knew that Batman was out there. He was real, please understand, to that little boy. And the man that little boy grew up into thanks everyone connected with Batman Begins for making Batman real once more. And thank you, Mr. Lee, for getting it!
Michael Borger
northwood(at)fourway.net
wanted to respond to H. Ronson's letter in "Lucas Ignores His Own Films."
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
In his letter he complains that Lucas seems to have forgotten that Leia remembers her mother in a conversation with Luke while on Endor in Return of the Jedi. "She was very beautiful, but sad," Leia says of the mother she remembers. Ronson then points out how Padme dies in Revenge of the Sith, and says that this shows Lucas contradicting himself.
I'm sorry, but Mr. Robson, you are missing the point. In Jedi, Leia is not remembering Padme, she is remembering the woman who raised her, the beautiful wife of Viceroy Bail Organa, who is obviously a sad woman, as she has seen her beloved Galactic Republic turned into the fiendish Empire. She probably knows as well the truth of Leia's parentage; if I were Leia (or Luke's) adoptive parent, and I knew the true story of my child's family, I, too, would be sad. Go back and watch Jedi again, dude. I don't believe Luke says "real mother," but just "mother." There is no discrepancy in the movie, only apparently in your recall of the scene (and, no, I am not trying to flame you, we all make mistakes in recall).
It all made perfect sense to me.
R. Glenn Myron
imladolen1(at)aol.com
his letter is in response to Mr. Brazil's comments ("Lucas Doesn't Deserve AFI Award") that George Lucas is undeserving of the AFI award he recently received for achievement in filmmaking. Let me start by saying that, as a rule, I don't flame people, especially if they have an opinion contrary to mine concerning a film. If Mr. Brazil doesn't like the Star Wars saga, he is certainly entitled to that opinion. I, on the other hand, love Star Wars. (Yes, the prequels, too.)
But it is ludicrous to say that Lucas has not had a tremendous impact on the film industry. After all, he did write and produce the Indiana Jones trilogy. After the success of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas started Industrial Light & Magic, the premier special-effects house in Hollywood. He provides other filmmakers with the tools they need to realizes their visions. Through his other companies he developed the THX sound system to improve overall sound quality for films, whether watching them at home or in the theater. Many big studio productions do their sound editing at Skywalker Ranch. Attack of the Clones was the first film to be shot completely digital, which, I'm sure, will eventually become an industry standard. Lucas also started Pixar, which he eventually sold off and has gone on to great success. He is also into developing educational tools for children using the visual medium. He allows fans of the saga to make their own Star Wars films and put them on the net so that future filmmakers will be inspired to create their own visions.
Apart from being a billionaire recluse, what is James Cameron doing with all his Titanic money (you know, that film that ILM did the effects for)? It's hard to imagine any filmmaker that has had such a profound impact on the industry as George Lucas has. Maybe you don't like his films, but the man has been very busy over the years. And you reap the benefits of his labors every time you go to the movies or watch a DVD.
TJ [last name withheld]
maxgremlin(at)adelphia.net
ince I was a child, I've been a fan of Star Wars. The action, the settings, the special effects and the story all inspired my imagination as I was growing up. I was even fortunate enough to see the special sneak preview of Return of the Jedi before it was released theatrically. In that version, the Ewoks were lethal little buggers who massacred a good portion of the stormtroopers when in their ambush. Once I saw the re-edited version, the version where the cuteness was emphasized over the plot, I knew things were heading for trouble.
When Phantom Menace came out after all those years of waiting, my fears were confirmed. Revenge of the Sith had some very impressive scenes, but mostly just made no sense at all. The Clone Wars on Cartoon Network were far better than Mr. "You Underestimate My Power!"
Now that the six episodes (seven if you include the Clone Wars) are complete, what I'd like is to remake the entire story from beginning to end. Completely scrap the story as it is and build it from the bottom up. Show the history of the Sith, avoid the old bad guys cackling and plotting evil model, and show the points of view of both sides. If the Sith were a bit more sympathetic, and the Jedi aversion to human emotions and passions a little more emphasized, the choice wouldn't be so obvious.
Personally, I think that the Jedi and the Sith are both abominations of extremism. If they explored that concept a bit, it might make a far better story.
Hieronymus Boaz
Hieronymus.Boaz(at)ca.ngb.army.mil
ur family has always a somewhat different attitude about science fiction in books, television and films. We've watched and read all of it, hoping that by continuing to supporting the genre, every so often, a real pearl will emerge as a reward for our faithful support.
In keeping with our custom, we dutifully bought tickets to the [Revenge of the] Sith. I'd read a review I kept to myself until after we'd seen the movie. As we walked out, I paraphrased it as "The Sith is better than the previous prequels to Star Wars in the same way that drowning is better than crucifixion." After sitting through the entire movie, everyone in my family, and some of the eavesdroppers to our conversation, were all in agreement. Perhaps the best sentiment about the film is summed up by the man walking out in front of us, who told his date, "Whew, thank heavens, now we don't have to go to [these] any more." The film really stretched fan loyalty to the breaking point.
On the other hand, we can hardly wait for the next batch of Battlestar episodes. We're adults and appreciate the arrival, at last, of a science-fiction series that is aimed at an adult audience rather than tailored for a teen or younger audience. If the subject matter is too mature for your children, then let them watch the hours and hours of episodes of other worthy science fiction available on DVDs or in reruns that were homogenized for a general audience. Please let us have just this one!
Sherry E. Wallis
sherry(at)sherob.com
he debate over whether Battlestar Galactica should or shouldn't include explicit sexual content is a waste of time. It's there. It's not going to go anywhere. This isn't about whether it's right or wrong. It's about do you want it or not. It's there because people want it there. It's that simple. Grousing about it won't solve anything.
People who want to do the right thing cannot be stopped. People who are bound and determined to do what they want will. It comes down to one's philosophy in life. Which would you rather see, steamy animal passion or characters who struggle to rise above what they are to become what they can be? A dog doesn't worry about how many children are starving when it eats the last pork chop. But human beings have the capacity to think about more than instant, selfish gratification.
Is sexier really better? Is it more real? How would you like to watch some of these sexy scenes with your parents or grandparents? We're not talking about kidifying here. Would you be comfortable sitting on a stage in front of a national audience watching you watch sex scenes? Some things should stay behind closed doors, even if there is nothing wrong with them. Everybody knows a horror movie is better when you don't see the monster. Suspense! Why is sex any different?
When are people going to stop saying, "That's the way it is" and start asking, "Does it have to be?" We have the capacity for so much more. To ignore that capacity for a cheap thrill seems a sad waste of resources indeed.
Mike Hudspeth
mike.hudspeth(at)tycohealthcare.com
had been refraining from getting into the fray regarding Battlestar Galactica and sexuality, but ... even on an adult show, there is always an optimal level (inverted U) of sexuality, it having value when it's used to advance the story.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
But sex has been an essential part of BSG, even if it was not known initially by the viewer. What looked like gratuitous sex wasn't. It was part of the Cylon plan to produce hybrid human-Cylon children, as revealed in the final episode of the first season. Guess it took a lot of tries to create cross-species offspring. But it was advancing the plotline.
However, how it was depicted visually is more debatable. I know I got tired of Baltar and his Cylon sexpot going at it. But part of that was because it was depicted as pure hedonistic horniness without real intimacy, which cumulatively has a yuck factor, like porn.
In contrast, both Boomers' various sex scenes were not jarring (I don't think anyone's mentioned them)—and that's because there seemed to be real affection between the characters, emotional connections that we saw evolve over time and have many more facets than sex—healthier relationships.
Exploring different sexual arrangements has always been part of science fiction, from [Ursula] Le Guin's species that could morph into either sex to, I believe it was [Robert] Silverberg, where what seemed to be several species were all parts of one with complicated series of events to procreate. It's even been explored on television, with the Newcomer couple in Alien Nation.
So with BSG, it's not so much sex as it is the heavy yuck factor in the type of relationship Baltar and Number Six depict. Any titillation it offered was short-lived.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
ar of the Worlds is about to premiere for the second time as a motion picture. But will it be Wells' 1898 classic that set the SF standard or a new-millennium con job?
On October 1938, Orson Welles and his Mercury Theatre troupe brought forth War of the Worlds as an alien invasion that began in New Jersey and, in barely 90 minutes, destroyed most of America. Welles had timed and primed his radio program to perfection. Disguised as a big-band concert with "news reporters" breaking in at key points, Welles drew a nationwide audience into a reality of his own making. Coupled with the threat of Nazi Germany, less than a year away from invading Poland and then conquering all of continental Europe, to this day, lowly radio holds the top spot in the presentation of a science-fiction novel. (No, folks, movies and television aren't even close!)
But is War of the Worlds about an invasion, by Martians or anybody else? What is the novel really about? According to Tom Cruise, the mega-star whose name and face will guarantee that Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds will gross $100 million in its first week, the movie is about "family values." Too many sci-fi fans believe that it's about humanity versus the space aliens. Please, the book is less than 50,000 words. Hasn't anybody out there bothered to read it?
By its title and first page, H.G. Wells makes it crystal clear what his novel is about when he writes about Man's belief in his "empire over matter." Less than a hundred words later, he warns of the coming of the "great disillusionment." That's right, humankind, you don't run the Earth. It's bigger than that!
It's War of the Worlds, not War of the Species! Man doesn't win, Earth does. Of course, the idea that maybe humanity could learn something from the planet it lives on still hasn't caught on. I mean, compared to "family values," what could we possibly benefit from the realization that we are but a small part of a grand natural scheme?
"How does SF stay in business in a world of marching morons?" asked Harlan Ellison.
You might think Wells and Welles are spinning in their graves at this very moment, but I think they're smiling in smug satisfaction. In the 21st century, the vast majority of the "sci-fi audience" are so much like the young, ignorant Eloi from Wells' first novel, The Time Machine. Imagine Wells coming back as his time traveler and discussing the vital issues of our age ... "Do you think George Lucas redeemed himself with Revenge of the Sith? Will Star Trek be reimagined yet again? What's with the T&A and pseudo-profanity of Battlestar Galaxative?" Poor Herbert George. Would he run off to embrace the Morlocks or cry out for all to hear, "I should have returned as the Invisible Man"?
And Orson? The wunderkind who became Citizen Kane and stunned Hollywood and the world with the greatest film ever made finished up as the voice of the robot planet Unicron, a veritable technological cartoon being. Oh, how the mighty wound up paying the rent!
The irony of genius and those incapable of understanding it. The sci-fi community has an empire over things that don't matter. The "great disillusionment" goes on.
Kevin Ahearn
kahearn(at)netpub.net
Back to the top.
