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.
r. Ahern's letter ("This War Isn't Wells or Welles") amazingly criticizes a movie that he hasn't seen yet, and by using faulty arguments. He completely misses what War of the Worlds is all about. It is not the environmentalist statement he thinks.
H.G. Wells never made a secret of it, that the novel was a thinly veiled condemnation of England's imperialist activities around the world. The readers got it, and that's why it has become a classic. Likewise, Orson Welles' radio adaptation came at a time of heightening tensions that would eventually blossom into World War II. Whether it was intentional or not, it still carried Wells' message, but this time it played on the fears of the listening audience, which were already piqued by newsreels and paper accounts of Hitler and his Nazi forces. That's why it affected the listening audience so; they were already conditioned to receive it by world events.
Now, Messrs. Spielberg and Cruise bring their own version to a world filled with new fears. Fears of terrorist attacks from other countries and, more importantly, from within. Where do the aliens come from in their version? From beneath our own feet.
I expect this version of WotW will strike the same chord as the book and radio play in today's audience. It won't produce the panic of the Mercury Radio Theatre production, but it will be just as timely.
Robert McNay
CptMatt(at)ameritech.net
eader Rick Sala ("Crichton's State Is Fearless") has a point in that SF Weekly has not reviewed Mr. Crichton's latest novel. The readership truly needs to read a thoughtful opinion. Until that happens, I will contribute my own. Mr. Crichton's fiction has been taking a downhill slide ever since Timeline. Timeline was an interesting screenplay written as prose that adequately illustrated Michael Crichton's knowledge of the Middle Ages. As an historical novel, it was a fun read, but as science it was abysmal. Mr. Crichton even contradicted his own "science" within the plotline. His next book, Prey, was not much better. Prey was another example of a plot obviously written with a screen treatment in mind, with extrapolated science that was plain wrong.
State of Fear has brought Mr. Crichton's credence as a writer down even lower. The plotline is lame. I found the book impossible to get through without laughing. And, worse, his science is all wrong. Part of the problem with this book is that the author relied on data that was 20 years out of date. Twenty years ago, the less astute, mainly politicians, denied global warming because the scientific data was incomplete. Science requires certainty, and there were enough questions to make many experts in the field of environmental science wait before reaching definitive conclusions. Politicals picked up on this uncertainty and claimed that the unwillingness to commit by some researchers proved that global warming was not real. All it really meant was that they were waiting for more data. Mr. Crichton uses the political argument of 20 years ago as his "science."
Well, the data is now in, folks. No reputable researcher now denies that we are in a progressive state of climatic change, except for the scientists in State of Fear, that is.
Mr. Crichton wrote a series of very strong novels over the years that made him an international best-selling author. The SF writing community often couldn't understand how he could author books on the same scientific material that they often wrote about except that his books sold well and theirs usually did not. Well, the secret is out. Mr. Crichton's not a very good writer, and his science is not too hot either. The public, however, will still buy him up because he is a "name," which is often all it takes in the publishing business.
Les Kapler
l.kapler(at)mchsi.com
efore readers follow Rick Sala's advice ("Crichton's State Is Fearless") and read Michael Crichton's anti-global-warming polemic disguised as a novel, I suggest that they check out the Web site www.realclimate.org. This is a blog maintained by actual scientists who have been studying the phenomenon of global warming a lot longer than Crichton has. A featured article there is "Michael Crichton's State of Confusion." This treatise exposes Crichton's misuse of facts and limited understanding of the issues. They don't dismiss him entirely, just point out that the depth and breadth of his knowledge of the subject aren't nearly as great as he seems to think they are.
The extent and cause of global warming are still very much a matter of opinion, but the global scientific community seems to be converging on a consensus that it is happening and is at least partially due to human activity. This is one thing that might give you pause when reading Crichton's analysis of the issue: He makes it seem as if any reasonably intelligent person should be able to look at the facts on climate change and realize that the whole thing is a fraud. Why, then, do the vast majority of climatologists not see this? Crichton has offered two explanations in his writings and speeches: First, he essentially claims that most scientists are sheep whose tendency is to follow the flock rather than challenge conventional wisdom. Second, he asserts that many scientists are pushing the dangers of global warming in order to drum up money for research grants.
Both of these claims are patently ridiculous. First off, the law of "publish or perish" that holds sway at universities and research institutes means that scientists are constantly examining each other's theories for weaknesses that could be turned into a journal article. If a high-profile theory like climate change were really that shaky, they'd be all over it like a pack of starving wolves, consensus or no.
As to the financial theory, there are plenty of corporate interests and right-wing policy groups who have made it quite clear that there are showers of cash on tap for any qualified scientist who wants to take on the idea of global warming. If their motives were really that deterministic, wouldn't a lot more researchers be switching sides in the debate?
On the whole, I agree with Rick that climate change is a very important issue which everybody should strive to become more educated about. I just hope that people don't develop their opinions based entirely on one source, particularly one as questionable as State of Fear.
Matt Frey
mattgfrey(at)msn.com
his letter is in response to Mr. Scott Edelman's article "A Tale of Two Bruces" that appeared in Science Fiction Weekly.
Movies starring comic-book characters are prone to lending themselves to special effects. Especially if they are about superheroes. What should not happen, though, is that substance should play second fiddle to style. I have not seen the film Batman Begins as yet, but I am happy to say that I have been reading positive reviews about the film, with the exception of one instance. I had seen the films Memento and Insomnia and thus had high hopes when I had heard that Mr. Christopher Nolan would be directing the film. I am glad to say that Mr. Nolan has managed not to disappoint, and choosing a person with talent to produce an exquisite piece of work becomes a regular occurrence when it comes to making movies starring comic-book characters.
Julian Gift
juliang(at)tstt.net.tt
ast week, I went on record ("Sith Sinks While Galactica Soars") with my family's praise for Battlestar Galactica as something finally for adult sci-fi fans that was really good. I left out Firefly because, despite the accolades from many fans, we never got to see a single episode. We've remedied that by buying the DVDs, and they've certainly brightened up a seriously bleak television schedule for the last couple of weeks.
I can't believe a show this good just came and went so quickly. What a shame! If you missed it, buy the DVDs, because the writing, acting, special effects, just the entire show is a real treat. We're certainly going to make the movie a big priority.
Sherry E. Wallis
sherry(at)sherob.com
couldn't agree more! ("Sith Sinks While Galactica Soars") I live in Europe, where the only thing released for Galactica is the series premiere. I loved it and have been reading about it on this site for months. Everything Americans (and, I think, the British, too?) get to watch on the SCI FI Channel, and I can't believe it, on network TV, too!
I laugh weekly reading the letters from your readers regarding the pseudo-cursing in BSG.
Anyway, [Revenge of the] Sith was cinematically "pretty." I like pretty! Most people do. What will keep me coming back for more is substance over style.
Wishing I had the SCI FI Channel in Luzern, Switzerland,
Debbie Waser
debbiewaser(at)hispeed.ch
his is my feedback after viewing the latest George Romero film Land of the Dead. I'm a big fan of zombie movies, but I'm afraid that I was very disappointed in the film.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
The story was weak, and the plot revolved around a single zombie (a black service-station attendant) and the idea that the walking dead had the ability to use weapons? I thought that the zombies were supposed to be flesh-eating, mindless, disfigured creatures without an agenda. It reeked of social commentary, and it was not scary to me in the least. This one is a dog. I like the remakes much better than this instalment. I only hope there are more to come to make up for this mistake.
Sorry George, better luck next time.
Eric Lowe
Jetranger1(at)aol.com
very much enjoyed the movie Bewitched. It was a lighthearted comedy where you can take the entire family and not worry about something dirty or crass.
All the major characters of the original series were played well by the movie actors, with one exception:
Where was Larry Tate? His character was in almost every episode in the TV series. Yet there wasn't even a mention of him in the movie.
Joe Vance
joevance(at)yahoo.com
just wanted to drop in a line to say thank you to writer TJ for his concise and well-written rebuttal to Mr. Brazil's "Lucas Doesn't Deserve AFI Award." I found I was too shocked by Mr. Brazil's statement in that letter to try to sit down and write a clear letter in retaliation that wouldn't take up 10 pages, so I was very glad to see [TJ's] short but well-stated points in "Lucas Deserves His Cash and Kudos." As you said, whatever people's feelings about the prequels (which I also loved, by the way—well, Sith much more than the others), you cannot possibly dismiss the sweeping and lasting positive effect Lucas has made to not only sci-fi/fantasy films but the world of film in general. Thanks again, TJ, you are not alone in your feelings!
As to the depressing and overwhelming consensus here that Revenge of the Sith was a letdown, I don't know, were we all watching the same film? I do realize that the divide between those who thought it was outstanding versus those who thought it was just ho-hum was pretty much dependent upon your age—that those of us who basically grew up with the first films acknowledge and swear by the fact that nothing really can touch the originals. However, I also thought that, for the most part, this same group, in general, saw and appreciated Sith for what it was ... not only the strongest of the prequels but a very emotionally satisfying way to finish the story and leave us with a brand-new appreciation and understanding of the films coming up. I am not sure how, as a fan of the originals, you could sit through this movie and not be moved by different story points tying things up.
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
Granted, Hayden Christensen's portrayal of a man's descent into darkness isn't going to win an Oscar anytime soon, but it was downright painful and horrifying at certain points to see how this man (who is the father of the hero and heroine coming up in A New Hope!) could actually come to murder "younglings"! How could you not become giddy during the scene where Yoda acknowledges Chewbacca? How could you feel no sort of fulfillment to actually see the Emperor become the Emperor ... I could go on and on, but I won't because I don't want this to turn into a 10-page tirade.
I am not arguing with people who still hold up the originals as the best of Lucas' efforts, but for goodness' sake, to completely dismiss the downright fun of getting to see something like the scene between two iconic characters such as Yoda and the Emperor finally having a go at each other ... I mean, the penultimate examples of light versus dark in this series! I don't know, I'm left feeling perplexed, as if I saw a completely different movie from those that were left completely unmoved. I suppose it could be argued that my childlike love of the Star Wars mythos blinded me. But if that's what I am guilty of, so be it. I'd rather be accused of seeming too childlike than appearing too jaded or cynical.
Yolanda Webb
ylw31(at)yahoo.com
do love it when someone responds to what they think they've read, rather than what I actually wrote ("Lucas Doesn't Deserve AFI Award."). For the information of TJ [last name withheld] ("Lucas Deserves His Cash and Kudos."), I would agree that it is ludicrous to say that Lucas has not had an impact on the film industry. I didn't say he hadn't had an impact. My gripe with him is with his rubbish scripting, feeble plots and over-reliance on FX when it comes to Star Wars.
As for TJ [last name withheld]'s assertion that Lucas wrote and produced the Indiana Jones trilogy, I think he'll find that George had major help from Gloria Katz, Willard Huyck, Philip Kaufman and Lawrence Kasdan. In fact, on the two later movies, Lucas received only an executive producer credit. Besides which, it was mainly Harrison Ford and Steven Spielberg who forged the character into a cinema icon. Not in terms of script, but up there on the big screen.
It's true that Lucas started Industrial Light & Magic, with his money and other people's talent. But, if merely putting big bucks into projects qualifies someone as a great creator, then there are a lot of unsung names out there. Mostly venture capitalists who wouldn't know one end of a script from the other, in a creative sense. The same scenario is true for Lucas' involvement with THX sound, and Pixar.
Finally, TJ [last name withheld] said it was hard to imagine any filmmaker that has had such a profound impact on the industry as George Lucas. May I humbly suggest that this viewpoint is somewhat blinkered. Profundity, being wisdom that is recondite and abstruse, and Mr. Lucas do not sit well together. Lucas is the king borrower of movie makers, and as such cannot ever achieve as great an impact as those writers, producers and directors who truly originate.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
just wanted to respond to R. Glenn Myron's letter "Lucas Didn't Create Discrepancies." In his letter he says:
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).
Well sir, as soon as I read this letter, I went downstairs and got my box set of Star Wars DVDs and put Return of the Jedi into my DVD ROM and went to the chapter "Brother and Sister." In that scene, Leia asks Luke, "What's wrong?" Luke replies, "Do you remember your mother?" Pause. "Your real mother?"
I read these letters every time I get my Science Fiction Weekly e-mail and just laugh at most of them, but this time I just had to reply to one. If you are going to make a point about telling someone to watch the movie so he remembers a scene, watch it yourself first so you don't make a fracken or frelling fool out of yourself.
I used those two words (fracken and frelling) to segue into another point that has been annoying me about a lot of the letter writers here. So what! I do believe that the term "frack" was used in the first run of Battlestar Galactica along with Starbuck's favorite term, "felkercarb." (The spelling may be off on this, as it is a made-up word used in outer space.) I think that the closest translation in English for this word is "bull poo-poo."
If you have such a problem with your kids hearing made-up words that might mean something else, then I suggest you stay off the playground. Children have been doing that for years so they can say bad words without getting in trouble. I think that TV is just following the example of children. As for sexual situations and brief or partial nudity, isn't there a rating that comes up in the corner of the screen that says what ages are recommended to watch this show?
Honestly, I may be wrong about this one, but I do know that many shows on different channels have a TV rating with them. If you do watch BSG with your children and a scene comes up like Baltar and Starbuck doing the nasty, this might be a good time to have a talk with your child explaining what is happening. OK, my rant is done. I wasn't planning on going where I went, but I went anyway. Thank you for posting and reading.
Rick Spotten
c.budda(at)verizon.net
red Weaver said something in his post [two weeks ago], "Quality Matters Most", that I have been thinking about the last several weeks. He referred to the new Cylons as "androids."
[Warning: Potential spoilers follow.] Now, didn't the cute little Korean Cylon on Caprica say that she was pregnant by her human lover? If she's telling the truth, this obviously means that the new Cylons are not androids. The definition of an android is a robot that is built to look like a human being. Commander Data on Star Trek is an android. He doesn't have biological parts.
The definition of a cyborg, however, is a cybernetic being with biological parts. The Borg on Star Trek are examples of this. The question is, are the new Cylons cyborgs? If she has become impregnated by a human, then she has ovaries and a womb and some sort of placenta and other life-sustaining systems such as a blood and nutrient supply system. This would help explain why the Cylons believe they have souls. They could have bioengineered human parts with a positronic brain and nervous system and a mechanical skeletal system.
I certainly hope the show's writers know the difference between an android and a cyborg.
T. Hannibal Gay
Hannibal(at)Hotmail.com
Back to the top.
