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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
"Clute bites!"
he only thing more repugnant than a religous zealot that just won't let you be (...one bent on moving you toward his sensibility whenever you happen to fall under his purview), is a hyper-zealous atheist on a God-bashing, organized-religion-is-the-bane-of-humanity mission -- all the while treating you like he's doing you a favor. Clute's "God sucks" piece was lame.
You want candor? I consume SF books at a fever pitch. I believe in God. I have no trouble reconciling the two. I'm an adult ... Clute bites!
Nice Web site though.
Steve Cox
scox1@ix.netcom.com
Editor: I'm sorry you didn't enjoy John's first column for us. Perhaps when he covers other topics they will be more to your liking.
Clute delights
'm delighted that you have added John Clute to your site. I am a regular reader of Science Fiction Weekly, and now Clute is yet another very compelling reason to stay one.
Thanks for your efforts.
Craig DeLancey
cdelance@phil.indiana.edu
Editor: Thank you for the kind words, Craig.
Horrified by intolerance
aving just read John Clute's new review column I find myself concerned that The Sci-fi Channel would play host to such a narrow minded conceit of a writer. Harlan Ellison (a noted atheist) is at least a brilliant author and is worth the price of admission no matter what the subject. J. Michael Straczynski (also an admitted atheist) has stated and proven through his scriptwriting ("Passing Through Gethsemane": Babylon 5), that he is tolerant and open minded towards people's beliefs even if he does not share them himself.
I for one am a Christian who thoroughly enjoys science fiction and am personally horrified by the various intolerances and prejudices perpetrated by those who either misinterpret or purposefully misrepresent Christianity and its tenets. And I am not alone.
I suggest that the next time the Sci-Fi Channel selects a columnist that they show more care. Intolerance is an ugly thing, no matter what side of the fence you're on.
Chris Young
chrisy@eastpointcom.com
Editor: The "blame" for selecting John as a columnist lies entirely on the shoulders of Science Fiction Weekly, which is an independent publication. However, I must say that I find all three writers you've named worth the price of admission.
Believe in a good future
or Heaven's sake! Don't go religious on me. I believe in a brave new world, and the sci-fi stuff is great. But if God is in the picture, all you can believe in is war, hunger, death and stupid "faith" in something that often enough has proven to be more bad than good. Religion is the foremost cause of war and death. So let us belive in a good future -- without evil.
Hervard H. Merved
merved@journalist.com
Editor: An interesting counterpoint, Hervard.
Only as an individual can we progress
To John Clute:
n your recent article, I am quite amazed at your thought that God is a figment of imagination. Or am I misunderstanding your article? I am a Christian, but I am also a huge fan of science fiction. Most of the time though I find it so humorous that SF enthusiasts think that SF is true or possibly true. The belief that man can evolve and turn into a "super-man" is dead, it will never happen. People in general have mostly been, mostly are, and probably will be assholes.
Remember one of the earliest SF stories, Plato's allegory of the cave, discovering truth and trying to share it with your fellow man will undoubtedly result in your own destruction. Hey, I have no problem with people disagreeing with religion, because when an individual's faith becomes corrupted and imposing on the development of others; it no longer is faith, it is greed, selfishness, and tyranny. So too science fiction exposes the inability of mankind to progress itself.
Only as an individual can we progress, and through our own personal development and relationship with our Creator can we attain meaning. This is only a short voyage here on Earth, the undiscovered country that we cross into after death will be beyond the imagination of the SF of years past and to come. We only describe mere reflections of what lies ahead.
Christopher Macchione
cmacchio@kent.edu
Editor: Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Christopher.
Posturing is childish
find Mr. Clute's views on religion just a tad offensive. I find this view more prevalent in SF today than before. For example, the only bad character in the Red Mars series [by Kim Stanley Robinson] was the only explorer that belived in God. Now, I personally am agnostic, but I feel that extremist and non-compromising posturing is childish and a good indicador of lack of self worth. I would much more have preferred an intelligent column dealing with religion, pro or con, than the apparent hatred used by Mr. Clute.
Horrible things have been done in the name of science, or any other reason, along with religion. To judge today's religions by the actions hundreds of years in the past is ridiculous.
Luis Cedeno
LUISCED@swbell.net
Editor: Thank you for taking the time to write in, Luis.
Clute thrills
ust a quick note to say that I'm thrilled to see John Clute in Science Fiction Weekly. He is the most interesting critic/reviewer in the SF field, and he'll be a great asset to Science Fiction Weekly.
Richard R. Horton
rhorton@mdc.com
Editor: I agree with you on both counts, Richard.
Clute is an astute critic
hanks for the wonderful review of Corrupting Dr. Nice. I've occasionally visited your site in the past and will be doing so more often in future.
Especially now that you have John Clute doing a column -- he's one of the most astute critics in the field. I enjoy your extensive coverage of media SF, but really appreciate your attention to the written side of the field, and the classics. A lot of people aren't familiar with books written before the last ten years.
John Kessel
tenshi@unity.ncsu.edu
Editor: Thank you for the nice words, and for an excellent novel.
Ewoks -- been there, done that
ven though I love the Star Wars movies, every time I see Jedi and its Ewoks I am struck by their extreme similarity to H. Beam Piper's Fuzzies (introduced in Little Fuzzy, with sequels: Fuzzy Sapiens and Fuzzies & Other People, as well as Fuzzy Bones by William Tuning and Golden Dream by Ardath Mayhar). These tell the story of small furry humanoid sapiens that much resemble Ewoks, on a remote, densely vegetated world that resembles that of Lucas's creations. Though light and cute, these books are quite enjoyable and even meaningful reads with some dark patches and highly developed plots. While I won't accuse Lucas of stealing the idea (Little Fuzzy was first published in 1962), this is definitely a case of been there, done that, and done it better. I highly recommend the Fuzzy books to any SF reader who can get their hands on them.
At any rate, thank you for the continued high quality of your site -- it's one of few I read regularly and always enjoy.
Kit O'Connell, a.k.a. Tod T.
Fox
vulpine@cheshire.net
Editor: I read the Fuzzy books as well and enjoyed them. A good recommendation.
Another Jack Vance resource
liked the review of the Vance Archive, and thought I should point out that there is yet another Vance web page which is less devoted to statistics and keeps people abreast of the most current news related to Jack Vance. This is Mike Berro's Vance Information Page: http://www.massmedia.c om/~mikeb/jvm/index.html.
Gregg Parmentier
gregg-parmentier@uiowa.edu
Editor: Thanks for the tip, Gregg.
"Luke has it in him to be evil"
know you must get a lot of these E-mails (as they are so much easier to write than real letters), so I'll try and keep it short...
I've just one thing to comment on... you said:
The big change is in Luke Skywalker. No longer a whiny, insecure boy, Luke has traded his farmer's smock for the black vestments of a Jedi Knight. Rippling with the Force, he comes to Jabba's palace, makes light-sabre mincemeat of that nest of depravity, and rescues his friends.
And I've just got to say, Waitamin!
"Luke has traded his farmer's smock for the black vestments of a Jedi Knight." No! (and I know I sound way too passionate about this...). Luke isn't wearing the garb of a Jedi Knight, he is wearing the color of his soul, or near enough. If you get my meaning... Luke has it in him to be evil, and the black symbolizes how close he gets to that end.
My English professor ingrained in me the idea that Star Wars wasn't just star wars, it's Myth. I guess that's why I jumped on the review...it's not just an action flick ("Rippling with the force, he comes to Jabba's palace, makes light-sabre mincemeat of that nest of depravity, and rescues his friends."), it's about the human condition. It's about Luke's coming of age.
You're right when you said the movie suffers from its pop status. Maybe the scenes at Jabba's palace were too action-orientated, but you can get something else from the beginning too, i.e. Luke crushing the windpipes of those two pig-guards when he enters, which is decidedly an evil act, as his father Vader does it with much bad intent.
So, anyway, sorry for bugging you, but it's just one of those buttons. The rest of the review was fine, I assure you.
Ben Nilsson
Nhouse@pacificnet.net
Editor: Interesting take on the issue. I always thought he wore black because it looked cool.
Defends Dragonseye
ny review that starts with "The problem with sequels..." is bound to
antagonize someone; this one did.
I realize that as a longtime, rabid and slightly fatuous Anne McCaffrey
fan, I might be just a teensy bit biased. However, Tamara's review
seemed to miss the mark for me.
I also have (and reread the entire series after I got Dragonseye) all
the Pern books, including the various disconnected short stories. My
library includes an almost complete collection of Anne McCaffrey books.
To my knowledge, the only one I am missing is The Kilternan Legacy,
and even though it is out of print, I have read it.
Ms. McCaffrey writes about people, always; ordinary people who, through
circumstances beyond their control, are thrust into extraordinary
circumstances. Lord Chalkin is a petty little monster. Only an accident
of birth prevented him from being just another worker in a penal camp
labor mine. The story doesn't try to make him Ivan the Terrible. It
points out rather well that petty people can be quite dangerous if given
too much rein and control over the circumstances of others.
The second pass of Thread over P.E.R.N. was pivotal. All of the
technology that was brought by the colonists was not yet lost, but the
most knowledgeable people of that time knew that extreme measures must
be taken to prevent a total degeneration into anarchy. Fortunately
there are a few people with enough ideas to maintain the stratified
society that seems to adapt itself to protecting as many people as
possible. Without the occasional brilliant flash of insight or wisdom of
otherwise ordinary people, society anywhere would stagnate. I have read
all twelve of the Dragonrider novels, repeatedly; the short stories too.
Moreta's last ride still makes me cry, as does Brekke's heartwrenching
scream, Readis's realization of a heart's dream, and the death of our
beloved Masterharper Robinton and Zair.
Pern has always been about people (of all species), and about allowing
everyone his or her own way in life. The erosion of female rights is not
an issue when there are almost as many strong female characters in the
series as there are dragons. The male couple commented on in the second
pass is only confirmation of what fans of the series have always known.
Why even mention it?
I have been a 'sometime' resident of Pern for almost 20 years and
have no fault to find with Dragonseye. It is a tribute to Ms.
McCaffrey's writing that knowing the ending did not prevent me from
reading Moreta: Dragonlady of Pern, nor will it prevent me from
reading anything she wants to write about Master Robinton; and yes, I
will cry again when he dies. This type of writing is what it is all
about. It is why most people read, for a diversion from the everyday
reality of their lives. Reading about ordinary people who can accomplish
so much is inspiring to the heart.
Tamara's review will generate a lot of contradictory opinion. I may not
be the only one to respond adversely, but I did want my objection noted.
Some reviewers feel that they must criticize rather than critique, to be
taken seriously. This isn't necessarily the case.
Diane N. Catanzaro
catanz@flash.net
Editor: Thank you for the comments. So far you're the only one to have written in about this, but as always we will keep our e-mail box open to all comers.
