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.
was pleased to hear that Liam Neeson received the speaking part of Aslan the Lion in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, volume one of The Chronicles of Narnia ("Neeson Voicing Narnia's Aslan"), but I was dismayed to read Aslan described as a "deposed king." If that is how he is portrayed in the film, then a major injustice has been done to the story. Aslan is no more deposed in Narnia, than Roosevelt was deposed during the occupation of the Phillipines in WWII. Did your article writer even bother reading the book? It's a very short, highly enjoyable work, and could be polished off in an evening, and Aslan's very special position in that land is definitely that of a reigning king who comes back to find his lands occupied by an evil witch. Please reassure those of us who treasure the story by telling us that your writer didn't know what he was talking about.
John A.M. Darnell
John.Darnell(at)walsworth.com
an Spelling's review of The Island goes a little too far. Rather than give a brief introduction to the story and hinting at further twists he has layed out the majority of the plot twists without an apparent thought to leaving something for the veiwer to guess at.
Next time Mr. Spelling and Science Fiction Weekly editors [should] try to leave a little mystery. Wax as enthusiastic and detailed as you want about the explosions and sfx but leave at least a little of the real science-fiction elements like plot and the eventual use and misues of emerging technologies for the viewer to discover on their own.
From the glimpses I saw of the movie in commercials I had been intrigued. Now, if I go to the movie at all, I will be just waiting through what could have been an interesting guessing game about the self-contained world for the blow-ups and chase scenes that Mr. Spelling was so enthused about.
David Evans
sciencefictioniscool(at)yahoo.ca
Reviewer Ian Spelling responds:
Sorry, David, if you feel I gave away too much of the plot, but when you see the movie I think you'll realize I've not ruined any major secrets. Details I've mentioned come in the first half-hour, and there's 90-plus minutes more of movie left. That feeds into my point that, after providing some food for thought, the film is pretty much non-stop action.
In terms of your direct point about not leaving the audience something to guess at, simply put: There is nothing to guess at, no guessing game to play. The way the story is told, Michael Bay and the writers lay it all out there for the audience and let the central characters play catch-up. The instant anyone sees Sean Bean, is there any doubt he's up to no good?
Also, David, you stated that you've seen the trailer. Honestly, there's more divulged in that than I've said in my review. I just watched it again online, and here are some snippets of dialogue: "There is no island." "You're not real. You're copies of people." "Use any force that's necessary." "Two of our products have escaped." "Do you still believe there's an island?" Doesn't leave much to guesswork.
Again, David, my apologies if you think I've ruined anything for you, but if you see the movie—and if you are interested, by all means go—you'll see I've truly just provided the setup and not revealed any pivotal twists or turns, certainly nothing more than the trailer you've already seen.
Best,
Ian
or a while I have noticed there is a distinct lack of gays in science fiction and it is disturbing to me. The fact that the heterosexuality of characters is emphasized to the point where even the plot suffers makes me question what is going on. Is it so important that we establish that only heterosexual, red-blooded men and women can make great heroes? One would naturally assume that in a genre where theorizing the impossible as ordinary, that homosexuality would have been addressed by the mainstream long ago.
Science fiction has always been a respectful genre, in my opinion, if for nothing else than the hopes and dreams it inspires. Sci-fi bids us to never stop searching, to always reach for those horizons; well, apparently that doesn't cover sexuality. The moment it is mentioned everyone either starts screaming threats or ignores it in complete silence. Characters jump on the nearest person of the opposite sex in an attempt to prove they are men and women. That is not what science fiction is about at all, and this lack of mention is disgraceful.
I believe the reason so many people ignore this fact is that there have been no undisputed Homosexual Heroes. The lack of anything to base such an idea upon makes people shy away from it. The time has come for a respectable homosexual character, one that defies stereotypes that most people seem to relegate them too. Perhaps, if and when this ever happens, people will actually see that homosexuality does not automatically make a person a villain.
Robert [last name withheld]
rooneykids(at)ccrtc.com
hanks for the review of Connie Willis' gem of a novel, Doomsday Book, a work that I was directed to by a co-worker a couple of months back. How I'd never heard of it before, I don't know, but I really do believe it's one of the best SF novels I've read for bringing you into the story and investing yourself emotionally with a character. Kivrin's reactions to all that she sees and learns in the past, from basic mundane life to the reality of a young girl set to be wed to a bloated older lord, and her complete and utter helplessness when the plague sweeps the town. ... I could count on one hand the times a genre novel has had me wanting to cry, and Doomsday Book had a pair of them.
Sean Gardner
batlamb(at)hotmail.com
evin Ahearn posited ("Bias Will Always Alter Opinions") in response to Fantastic Four's $56 million opening gross that the audience "went into the theater unbiased and liked what they saw." I have a quibble with that argument: The gross shows that they went to the theater to see FF, true. It does not, however, give us any indication that they liked what they saw, however. In fact, the large (about 60 percent) drop-off in revenue one week later would argue the opposite, that the word of mouth from the horde that braved the opening week was driving away interest in the film.
Even this argument is not without its flaws, however. Any way you look at it, it is simply a mistake to cite box-office receipts (or the lack thereof) in arguments such as these. Box-office receipts are, at best, a weak indicator of popularity. And popularity does not equal quality.
James Ellis
abd.al-hazred(at)shaw.ca
hree letters this week are posted from those who believe in global warming ("Global Warming Is Real", "Mother Nature Might Fight Back", "Technology Changes the Planet"). Were there no other responses to post countering what they said? It is most interesting to me to see people claim a belief such as global warming is an absolute fact, because they can point to "all these scientists," or "the data," or "the overwhelming majority of international scientists," and based on what those men and women say, conclude that it is true.
In man's history, there have been so many beliefs, facts, inarguable conclusions that have been later rebuffed they are too numerous to count. Some big ones ... the Earth is flat, the stars and Sun move around the Earth, Newton was the final authority on the way the universe works. Einstein developed the special, then general theories of relativity. He was lauded as a genius. Then came the development of quantum mechanics, with which he vehemently disagreed. Scientists all over the world then took different positions on quantum mechanics. Today, scientists accept both as reality, and reject both as the final way the universe works—there is as yet no universal theory to unite atoms with gravitation on a planetary scale.
Global warming ... we interpret data based upon measurements we've taken, and measurements we guess. One response on this Web site used paintings to emphasize his point that the Earth growing warmer? Come on, listen to what you were saying. At least those who "read the data" have a legitimate foundation for believing as they do.
Then, we are looking at data for the past 200 years, as was quoted in another. First, I'd like to know how many temperature readings were taken in 10,000 B.C., 1,000 B.C., 1,000 A.D., 1500 A.D., 1850 A.D., 1950 A.D. ... all over the world at a significant number of locations that could be described as close to relevant? I daresay, all data prior to the 20th century is anecdotal at best. I'm not saying we don't ignore it—for example, the volcano that exploded in the South Pacific in the 1800-10 time frame (?) that caused colder temperatures around the world. But putting together weather reports from ship captains all over the world over a three-year period is a far different thing than proving the Earth is warming because of hydrocarbons.
Looking at data can be both illuminating and deceiving, because the data has to be interpreted. Anyone who works in a company, for a doctor, scientist, or any other expert in any field knows this to be true. It is a myth for people to assume that experts in any field all agree. I could cite examples of archaeology, and how the foundation of that discipline itself is based on a myth, which has propagated throughout the last 200 years—dating artifacts in time frames based on their depths in the Earth, which itself is based on dates from other archaeologists, and so on. In the end, when it comes to any facts, data, or anything else, what we are really arguing is what the data means. Because someone with a Ph.D. says certain data means the earth is getting warmer because we drive SUVs is an interpretation of data. All interpretation comes from imperfect men and women who have biases—and many of whom have friends they want to impress.
The Earth is estimated to be 4 billion years old. If looking at the past 200 years, or 2,000 years, or even 2 million years, and stating that what we see demonstrates a fact, we delude ourselves. While I accept the veracity that burning fossil fuels is not the most expedient use of energy (no one does), and while I will also admit I believe there is a certain inherent advantage to men who run oil companies, automobile companies, energy companies, etc., to maintain burning energy as we currently do, there should be no one who believes to their core that global warming is a fact. At most, you should state that the evidence available may trend in that direction, but then accept that there are others who are intellectually honest who disagree with you. Pointing to the amount of people who believe as you do is the same as saying because the majority of scientists believed that flight with a mechanical engine is impossible, that means it cannot happen. Or that men cannot fly to the moon. Or that we cannot travel to the stars in faster-than-light machines—oops, that one we can't do yet. I believe someday we will—but then again, I can't really prove it. Nor can any scientist alive who believes otherwise prove I am wrong.
Now go to the beach and enjoy the sun!
Madden Stephen
stephen.madden(at)siemens.com
have to laugh at the talking heads on the news networks ... whining that if only Hollywood would make a clean, inspirational and worthwhile film—the moral majority (not the average, young, movie fan) would flock to it.
Hello—Cinderella Man.
If this movie were any more touching, heartfelt, well-made and acted, it would be a religious experience. Folks if you want this kind of film—you have to go and buy a ticket.
It flops, and next year we'll see Laverne & Shirley—the movie. Or the darkly sexual remake of Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (look who's taking over the captain's body this time). Or Land of the Lost with Jessica Simpson and Lucy Liu.
Same thing goes for sci-fi. Unless you want made-for-video movies or TV movies featuring 6-foot fireants or prehistoric marmosets eating teenagers, you have to support the effort of filmmakers who at least try to do something entertaining.
Nancy
crowswork(at)iwon.com
The problem with age is that one has seen and read too much and remembered too little. Sorry, but this old man has forgotten the names of most of the crew of the original Battlestar Galaxative and the characters and plots of hundreds of novels and TV episodes and movies. Am I losing it? Not yet, because I do remember the stuff that stuck with me more than half a century ago and will stick with me till my dying day. Quality and originality stick. Crap withers quickly and disappears.
But who's the judge of that? Here I have railed against the countless remakes and ripoffs and the endless and pointless published SF series' as if I alone know what's worthwhile and what's not.
Well, in a way, maybe I do. That "golden age" occurs in all of us usually between 6 and 11 years old—a time in our lives when our minds are yet to be filled and our imaginations hungry—that youthful enthusiasm we never want to lose. For me, such is the magic of SF & F—I want to feel as young as I had when I first beheld it! Do any of you believe for one minute that the recent Van Helsing or War of the Worlds or Planet of the Apes stuck with me? C'mon, the originals have been a part of me for decades. To suggest there was even a comparison between how I felt about Enterprise and the rush I got when I saw my first Star Trek 40 years ago would be illogical.
Are older SF & F fans living in the past while condemning the present as having no future? Admittedly, the first sight of Frankenstein's monster or when The Thing shot his arm out when that door opened or the Psycho shower scene or even my first look the Crab Monsters or the 50-foot woman or the Invaders From Mars ... shocked the child I used to be. It's that youthful sense of wonder I am longing to feel again through SF & F and can't find it anywhere.
Will you be any different? In 10, 20 or 50 years, in whatever medium is used to show SF & F, think about what you're seeing now and wonder how much of it will stick with you.
It's not the New York Times or Time magazine that decides what SF & F will last, but time itself. Make the most of it.
Kevin Ahearn
Dorothydspr(at)aol.com
aybe it's a cultural difference, but I fail to see how anyone can be as shocked as Yolanda Webb claims to have been, just because someone doesn't agree with her ("Star Scales Should Be Balanced"). On the other hand, her dismay does serve to illustrate how Star Wars is on the fringe of being a religious belief system. It may amuse some and delight others to learn that in the last U.K. general census of the population, several million people listed their religion as "Jedi." The majority, however, were poking fun at the invasive nature of census forms.
Yolanda also expressed her concern over "someone completely dismissing the work of a person who's had a tremendous effect on an entire generation of movie goers." I've just checked over the past few week's letters pages, and cannot find any Lucas detractors completely dismissing the work of the "not so great" maker. In fact, when the discussion turned to areas such as his unparalleled marketing skills, Mr. Lucas was given all due credit.
Most puzzling was Yolanda's question, "I'm not sure if you named your piece or not, but I have to ask ... if an opinion isn't personal, what is it?" For her information, I have no editorial control over how letters are named. Yes, of course opinion is personal, and there's nothing wrong with that. Agreeing to disagree must be infinitely preferable to one person, one faction, or one nation, trying to impose a view on others. Perhaps, in his clumsy way, this is also what Mr. Lucas was trying to say?
Lulli Doppler
lulli(at)minx.co.uk
n reference to Scott Edelman's review of War of the Worlds, it help me make up my mind to see it. I was 5 years old when the first one came out, and although my mom and I would go to every horror or sci-fi movie, none ever scared me or gave me nightmares until I saw this movie. I believe the special effects were far ahead of the time, and so real I did get scared and had nightmares. And, as much as I wanted to see how a quality director such as Spielberg could handle it, when I saw that Cruise was starring, I almost decided to just wait until it came on pay-for-view, and I could tape it and then watch it again if it was good.
But [Edelman] made me want to see the new version and if he liked Cruise, as he and I feel the same about his acting, then I need to see the movie. I also liked [Edelman's] comment about the addition of the two stars of the 1952 version as grandparents, nice touch. Also, if you watched Independence Day you could also see a nod to War of the Worlds in the use of the atomic-bomb part. In the original War they used a plane that is impossible to find as Jack Northrup burned everyone of them up on the tarmac at the Hawthorne plant back in the early '50s after War was made. The '52 version used the jet-powered flying wing. Independence Day used the new B-2 Stealth Bomber, a modern version of the flying wing, and it's produced by Northrup, so I believe that it was no accident they used the Stealth Bomber as both movies had us fighting aliens so far advanced.
So, thanks Scott, for taking my fears away about seeing the new one. I know it won't give me nightmares but I hope it scares the heck out of me like the first one did. And for those who have never seen the '52 version, AMC runs it often or get a VCR copy. I don't think it's on DVD yet. But remember, when you watch the movie, it was done over 50 years ago—long before technical effects were as great as they are now.
And one last thing, the '52 version takes place outside the city of Corona, Calif., and I lived there for 25 years and it is so rare to find a movie with that city mentioned back then along with Pomona.
Thanks for getting me to the theater this weekend!
Fr. Terry Gomer
tgbsg_4(at)yahoo.com
irst off, let me say, I really enjoyed the new rendition of War of the Worlds. It was fantastically entertaining. I loved it.
But....
The science part of the science fiction sucked. Two big problems. Why the heck would aliens plant themselves on an alien world a million years prior to intelligent life appearing just to wipe it out? Now, there might be an answer to this which is to harvest the human blood. I wasn't sure if that was the point. Even if that was the point, wouldn't we have accidentally bumped into their craft at least once if not multiple times? We drill all over the planet; dig like crazy; mine; and map the Earth underneath the surface ... we'd have found something.
The bigger problem that has no solution is this: If you're a space-faring race with the intelligence to travel trillions of miles, you're also intelligent enough to realize an alien culture just might have microbes that could kill you. This makes for a great movie ending but otherwise makes no sense. Their technology could easily protect them from such microbes. Face it, H.G. Wells figured this out in the 1800s; an advanced race would be a bit beyond that.
Bruce Goldstein
bgoldstein14(at)hotmail.com
Back to the top.
