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.
egarding Lala J's letter about Tripping the Rift ("Rift Is Perverted and Pigheaded"):
Lala states, "The only reason why women are ever included in animated things for people over the age of 12 is to be degraded, exploited and disrespected!"
What? Lala, let me assure you that very few things could be further from the truth. Take a look at Japanese animated movies such as Ghost in the Shell, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Outlaw Star, Bubblegum Crisis or even American fare such as Mulan or even Beauty and the Beast. All of these feature well-developed characters, and most of them are capable women who don't take any crap from anyone. In none of these features are the woman "degraded, exploited and disrespected."
That said, I agree with you on one thing: Tripping the Rift is absolutely terrible garbage.
Michael Johnston
ma222(at)saclink.csus.edu
hatever happened to "If you don't like it, don't look?" If you find what the SCI FI Channel airs so offensive, then just don't watch. I believe there is a disclaimer that Tripping the Rift is for mature audiences and some material is offensive to some viewers, i.e., you. So then tell me: Why do people like you, Joe Bowyer ("Rift Trips Parent's Sensibilities"), always find it necessary to start some major letter-writing campaign to try to stop a show that you find offensive? I thought our country was founded on freedom of speech, not freedom of speech for those who agree with you. Daytime television has more sex than Firefly and Battlestar Galactica put together. Are you trying to get them off the air? My family finds both shows both entertaining and well written. And there question of higher standards? The SCI FI Channel, which has the best Friday-night lineup on the air, has a promo with a guy blowing into a dogs butt and turns it into a balloon animal. What are you expecting, Touched by an Angel? If you are so concerned with what your young son is watching, then maybe you should stick to Disney Channel or PAX TV, but I'm sure you will find something wrong with those channels as well.
Misty Clark
mistygirl_90(at)yahoo.com
love reading the lettercol here. People complaining about such trivial stuff. It makes me laugh at times. Take Joe Bowyer ("Rift Trips Parent's Sensibilities") crabbing about the "unneeded sex" in Firefly and Battlestar Galactica. O.K., Galactica has some pretty racy spots, given, but Firefly? I own the series set, have seen it more than once, and have yet to find any "unneeded sex" on this show. Nothing even titillating. Lighten up, folks.
Homosexual heroes needed? Read some Marvel comics. They've got some gay (and some we're not sure of) heroes. Settle down, people.
I myself have read and watched sci-fi for well over 45 years now, and I'm just pleased as punch that there is so much more out there to see than there used to be.
Enjoy what you like, and if shows or books contain things that tick you off, don't read or watch them. Yes, Tripping the Rift is not a kids' show, but the ads aren't going to warp their minds—[whereas] hiding them from reality just may.
Oh, and before I forget, to the born-again Christian guy ("SF Needn't Represent Everyone"), read J. Michael Straczynski's Rising Stars comic series; there is a Christian hero in there. (Of course, he's also ... well, just read it.)
Thomas Millman
tamachan5(at)msn.com
t's time you took Tripping the Rift off the air. This is nothing but animated pornography. It is infuriating to be watching another program and see the advertisements for this trash. If this garbage remains, I will remove your channel from my satellite package and will no longer support the sponsors of this program.
J. Duncan
jydaz60(at)commspeed.net
oe Bowyer asserts: "Firefly and Battlestar Galactica both have unneeded sex in them, and I do not watch them, but at least sex and being crude is not the main focus of those shows." ("Rift Trips Parent's Sensibilities")
Who defines "unneeded sex"? I would hope the writers and directors and producers of a show, not the censors. I watched quite a bit of Firefly when it was originally aired and saw little or no sex, though one of the female leads is a compassionate courtesan. In Galactica, I think I could make a strong case for the sex scenes being necessary to both character development of Starbuck as well as for delineating the growing madness and Cylon control over Baltar.
Sex is part of life. A very important part of life. It has always had a place in science fiction and fantasy, from the works of Philip Jose Farmer and Robert Heinlein to the fantasy of Elizabeth Lynn and C.J Cherryh and Tanith Lee to Marian Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series and more recent works. Certainly the evolution of human relationships is field for speculation. Science fiction reflects this.
Science fiction is not, nor should it become, G-rated to suit the prudes or the parents who are too darned lazy to supervise their kids' viewing habits. I am sick and tired of groups like the Parents Television Council attempting to force their values on everyone else in the form of insistence that everything should be suitable for kids under the age of 12. If they and the Religious Reich have their way, the entire world will be Disneyfied, and there will be nothing left for anyone with an I.Q. over 70 and above the age of 12 to watch.
My advice to Joe is that if he can't handle the ads for Tripping the Rift (which are aimed at adults and are probably more suitable after 9 p.m., when the youngest are in bed), he should keep his kids from watching the SCI FI Channel. I hope that the SCI FI Channel will not bow to his wishes and start censoring itself.
Gillian Fitzgerald
irishwitch(at)charter.net
loved that movie Bloodsuckers. The idea of different kinds of vampires was awesome, and the venom one with the worm things was cool. Are you ever gonna sell it on video or something? Because that would be so awesome. I really loved that movie. And the actress that played Quintana, or however you spell it, was awesome. This is my favorite SCI FI movie ever, and I didn't think it was possible to top Boa vs. Python. Great work.
Kendra McKay
blondedevil90(at)hotmail.com
egarding the letter "Purple Pterodactyl Needs Tracking", I don't have a copy, but the book that Jessica Lucens is thinking of would appear to be The Purple Pterodactyls: The Adventures of W. Wilson Newbury, Ensorcelled Financier, by L. Sprague De Camp. It's no longer in print, but there are plenty of used copies available (the last edition seems to be from Ace Books in 1980).
Phil Maloney
maloney(at)origins.colorado.edu
had found out a while back that HBO was going to cancel a wonderfully written, directed and acted series, Carnivàle. I have given it much thought and must say that I am distraught and discouraged by the decision makers at HBO (or whoever does this kind of thing). What could they possibly be thinking? There aren't very many shows out there that are worth watching and that is not predictable. ... As a faithful watcher of many HBO series (and a few others), I am seriously rethinking my TV viewing. It always seems to happen that when I do get interested in any show or series, after a year or two, it gets canceled. So I ask, what can we, the regular people, do about it? I'm afraid not much, but to voice our opinion to anyone who will listen.
Mary Anderson
mary.anderson(at)gnvdirect.com
s a long time SCI FI Channel viewer, I was rather shocked and greatly dismayed over the apparent lack of any tribute to Jimmy Doohan (Star Trek's Scotty) by the SCI FI Channel. In June of 1999, SCI FI did a wonderful, week-long tribute to DeForest Kelley when he passed away, by having a daily Star Trek episode, almost all starring De prominently, air every day for a week, solid.
I have been watching fairly closely, and have seen nary a word, a show, or any tribute from the SCI FI Channel concerning Jimmy at all. That is unconscionable. Especially considering the fact that, had it not been for Jimmy's groundbreaking work on and during Star Trek in the '60s, bringing science fiction to mainstream America, and his unfailing work during decades of conventions to thank the fans in person, most of you at the SCI FI Channel would not even have a job, or a career, in science fiction and television. This is not even mentioning his fabulous work, inspiring two generations of viewers to become engineers, vastly helping our society's infrastructure and educational boundaries expand.
I am appalled at this indifference. I would hope that at some point, if it is not already way too late, you would come to your senses, and do some sort of tribute to this legendary figure. Jimmy Doohan changed the way Americans think about science, sci-fi, science-fiction movies and space travel. The very least you could do is recognize his lifetime achievements with some small token of appreciation.
Z. Alexander Gentle
metra2002(at)comcast.net
he one thing that I enjoy most about science-fiction media is the ability for the creation an idea of something that I would never have dreamed up myself and allowing me to utilize my imagination in conjuction with the media to journey to new places that may lay in wait for mankind in the future. Good science-fiction media to me gives the reader/viewer space to interpret certain parts of the plot of a story, thus enriching the experience one has with the media that often leaps beyond logic.
For example, I recently viewed the War of the Worlds remake in the theater, which I found to be an excellent movie. In speaking with some of my peers, they did not want to see the movie because of Tom Cruise's recent Scientology comments. Their loss. There have also been several attacks on the "science" used in the film. This leads me to the question of what happened to the imagination of audiences that watch sci-fi. For one thing, it was hypothesized by non-scientific people that the war machines had buried themselves into the planet millions of years ago. This was not factually stated in the movie. The ships could have materialized on our planet two days before the invasion. Based on current stealth technology and the ability for these machines to get underground in the first place, use your imagination.
Why did the aliens choose to invade us now? Perhaps it was because the world's population growth had reached a level that the aliens needed. They were using human blood to help terraform our planet. Taking into account human loss during the "human herding" phase of the invasion, the population of Earth must have reached an acceptable level for such an invasion.
Many good directors and writers deliberately leave a part of the story "folded" so that the audience has the ability to formulate their own ideas to help bring the viewer/reader closer to the media's material. Spending time picking apart the logic of a movie or book, as I have found, usually ruins the experience of what I'm watching or reading (unless the material is dreadfully bad). After all, humans are not always logical.
Dave Richmond
dave.richmond(at)agilysys.com
read with keen interest Ian Spelling's July 11 trashing review of Fantastic Four and the subsequent fan reaction letters in your next Science Fiction Weekly issue.
But what manner of censorship is this, that no one dares mention a primary reason to hate the film? In one of the nastiest ploys ever to retain film rights, the studios commissioned our hero of the fantasy/horror B movie, Roger Corman, to produce a Fantastic Four in 1994 on next to no budget, never telling him or the hardworking crew that their work would be deliberately buried. Corman and his team did a great job, and their perfectly likable version will be forever available only on the bootleg market. That's why I won't go to see the official, bloated and deservedly panned 2005 version.
Carl Schroeder
cs(at)soulstirring.org
he "all-new" Stargate series absolutely sucks. What has been a great series has now degenerated into a side show of supposed humor. Everyone is a comedian. As soon as O'Neill made general he became Mr. Stupid, acting like a retarded schoolboy. Then Teal'c essentially leaves the show, followed by Carter's disappearance. Daniel Jackson grows a hairy face and is constantly accompanied by a female comedian, and they go around like Laurel and Hardy. For my part, I have totally lost interest. I think it would be good to cancel the show before it dies on its own.
Mark Saffell
mark.saffell(at)verizon.net
have to assume Madden Stephen ("Not All Scientists Agree") is a fan of fantasy rather than science fiction, because most people who like science fiction also like science, and
Mr. Stephen appears to have no respect for science nor scientists—and seems to have huge gaps in what he knows.
Yes, cherished scientific theories have been overturned, and research results are subject to interpretation, but the things we call scientific fact have large bodies of research and observations behind them, with the consensus of many minds, more often right than wrong. Yes, there are areas of science where competing theories have not been settled—but global warming has pretty much left that category. The tons of garbage our cars and factories have spewed into the air since the Industrial Revolution has been measured in the wind, which shows increasing pollutants, the type that trap carbon dioxide. Heck, I read an article last year that showed the pollution in New England could be identified a having come from China based on its content! Just like people thought they could defile the ocean with waste without effect, the atmosphere also has some maximum dump capacity, after which something changes, in this case increasing heat. To think pollution has no cumulative effect is denial.
Now, to historical weather: There are many ways that science knows what the weather was previous to the 20th century besides ship captain's reports and other historical writings. Tree rings and core samples, earth and ice, come immediately to mind, which is not that different than your hated archaeologists using stratification in pristine sites. And don't be so disparaging of volcanoes: They're big deals that often inspire historical records, so they add to veracity of the timelines found in core samples, tree rings, etc. Those events also anchor archaeological timeframes from carbon dating and the newer dating techniques. Multiple measures by multiple means creates a pretty reliable picture which separates "belief" from what we accept as fact.
How ironic that Mr. Stephen's letter ended with "enjoy the the sun" when the fact kids have to wear SPF 5000 to go out to play is yet more proof that the atmosphere has changed in our lifetimes, this time our destruction of the ozone.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
egarding Stewart Tame's recent letter ("Homesexuality Is on the Shelves") saying he wasn't aware of "homosexual villains" in an SF story. ... The one that comes to mind for me is Baron Vladimir Harkonnen in both Herberts' Dune books and the prequels. I remember in House Harkonnen when the Bene Gesserit are trying to convince the Baron to bed one of the women in order to father the grandmother of the Kwisatz Haderach, he replies that he only preferred males.
Then again, the Baron is also a sadistic homosexual pedophile, so I don't know if that counts.
Sue Hickey
Sue.Hickey(at)warp.nfld.net
have never written to your magazine before, yet I felt I had to reply to Robert's assertion that we need more gay/lesbian science-fiction heroes and heroines! ("SF Needs Homosexual Heroes") As a homosexual, it is disheartening to watch my favorite genre and yet even now there are no "out" homosexual characters. My apologies to your heterosexual readers, but they just have no idea what it's like to never see "yourself" portrayed in a realistic manner on screen. Most homosexual characters have either been portrayed as homicidal deviants (Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs) or buffoons (either character in The Bird Cage). In any case, homosexuals are virtually never shown in the science-fiction genre, unless one goes far afield to the fantasy genre, where we have Willow from Buffy, Xena and Gabrielle from Xena, Frodo and Samwise from the Lord of the Rings movies and ... one incarnation of the Green Lantern in the comics. A weak case could be made for Susan Ivonava from Babylon 5, but, at best, that character would have to be seen as bisexual.
As a lesbian, I'm tired of begging for crumbs at the science-fiction table! I'm tired of doing the mental jujitsu required to explain to my (straight) friends that a show like Farscape is actually very queer (John and Aeryn were different species, so that is sort of queer), or to believe that the characters Lee Adama and Gaeta from Battlestar Galactica are gay, but since humanity's numbers are so reduced they have to reproduce sexually with women. (Anyone can see they belong together! Don't get me started on Starbuck either!) All my life I have been a science-fiction fan, and all my life I have been homosexual. In nearly all my favorite sci-fi shows, books and movies, I recognized characters that were blatantly homosexual, yet somehow the characters were twisted into the heterosexual mold. I'm thinking Harry Kim on Voyager and Lt. Malcolm Reed from Enterprise. How hard would it have been to portray those characters honestly?
No, homosexuals are not pedophiles, not homicidal maniacs, not twisted and sick individuals ... anymore that heterosexual people are, and we deserve better from all of entertainment, including my beloved science fiction.
Those that are uncomfortable with this should grow up and realize that other homosexuals like myself are tired of being invisible. We don't want the world, we just want our rightful place in the world.
M. Annette Watlington
[address withheld by request]
he recent comments from Patrick Power ("Critics' Opinions Don't Matter"), with reference to critics, reviewers and letter writers were interesting and well put. But also a little askew. Patrick asked if people take critics into account when they decide what to watch or read. Speaking only for myself, I often seek out three or four reviews for a book or movie that I'm thinking of buying or seeing. Sometimes I disagree with them all, but I find that well-written reviews do help me to make an informed choice. As, like most people, I only have limited disposable income, this wastes less money than going on gut instinct alone.
Patrick's comments about searching the Net for reviewers and not finding them to be popular published authors, screenwriters, directors, etc., seemed rather silly. Is he seriously claiming that only peers are competent to review any given product? Where is the line drawn before well-considered opinion is dismissed as worthless, just because the writer does not impress Patrick with material success? Aren't honesty and a modicum of ability with the English language enough?
Lastly, I must address Patrick's assertion that entertainment doesn't have to be great art, expose all the social ills in the world, or even be good, providing it give us an escape from reality. While all of the above is valid observation, very few movies, books or TV shows set their sights so low. Pure entertainment works for 5-year-olds, but the rest of us want more. Babylon 5, for example, also dealt brilliantly with complex issues such as life and death, the power of religion, propaganda, politics and love. If the show had been without these elements, would it have lasted five series, or been anywhere near as good entertainment?
Lulli Doppler
lulli(at)minx.co.uk
think that the would-be nemesis of critics, Patrick Power ("Critics' Opinions Don't Matter"), might have some kind of mutant ability to spot a good thing. A power so keenly developed that he need never concern himself with the views of those who have already seen the movie or read the book. Especially if, like the majority of reviewers, the writer is not world-famous or vastly wealthy as a result of his meager efforts. What Patrick implied was that the only person of sufficient pedigree to review a George Lucas movie would be someone like Stephen King. What a shame that he's too busy!
In response to Patrick's five stated questions:
"1. Why do people feel the need to become a critic and write reviews of every TV show, movie or book they encounter?" Nobody I know of would fit that profile. Most critics/ reviewers confine themselves to the products they receive, plus the odd comment on sites like this one, where freedom of speech and diversity of thought are encouraged.
"2. What do they feel they are going to accomplish with their criticisms?" Speaking only for myself, all I hope to accomplish with criticism is to stimulate debate. As for my reviews, in the main I hope to give due credit to writers who've done a good job, and encourage readers to take a chance on something possibly unfamiliar to them.
"3. Are critics themselves frustrated creators?" Again, speaking for no one but me, the only creative frustration I have is lack of hours in a day. Would I like to be more successful? Sure,
who wouldn't?
"4. Do people actually take critics into account when they decide what to watch or read?" I do. Every brilliant director, actor and writer occasionally turns out a stinker. Ultimately, we make up our own minds, but it doesn't hurt to see what others are saying.
"5. Are critics really necessary?" Absolutely. Unless you have an infallible mutant power like Patrick, a world without honest critics/reviewers is a world awash with flashy advertising; the work of those with a vested interest in pushing a product, regardless of its quality.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
enjoy the "Letters" section of this site, if for no other reason than its entertainment value. Granted, there are nuggets of informed opinion contained therein from time to time, but it's much more interesting to see the wide range of rant that is out there. .... "Let's see what's out there!" Therefore, I would encourage all of you "Out-Theres" to write, rant and otherwise make merry. [Insert gratuitous smiley here.]
Now then, what is the purpose of a critic? ("Critics' Opinions Don't Matter") I suppose he's just trying to make an honest living trying to spare us any unnecessary waste of our time. I for one, truly appreciate this invaluable service. "Time is a luxury you do not have, Kirk." And like so many of us, we know not how much time we have left on this once-fair third rock from the sun.
Time—Just for the heck of it, create a spreadsheet and calculate how many hours you will live, assuming you make it to, say, 80 years of age. Assume 30 percent of that time is spent sleeping. Assume 41.66 percent (10 hours daily) is spent pursuing a vocation. How many hours are truly yours? Where are you now on the graph, and how much of the time-graph is left? The critic's job, therefore, is to ensure your remaining hours are well spent, avoiding those stinky sheety offerings.
Do you really want to change the offerings that "The Industry" serves up? Vote with your pocket book. Don't feed on the crap they offer and the crap will eventually disappear. 'Nuf said. [Insert second gratuitous smiley.]
Chris Gartner
GartneC(at)navcanada.ca
he recent Science Fiction Weekly "News of the Week" item credited Freddy Prinze Jr., who is married to Buffy the Vampire Slayer star Sarah Michelle Gellar, as stating the series likely won't be revived in film. "Not with Sarah," Prinze said. ("Prinze: No More Buffy For Gellar")
His reasoning being the failure of the original 1992 film. "They already made one," he said. "It didn't work. That's why [they] made the TV series. It worked much, much better as a TV series. It worked so well as a TV show, I don't think Sarah would want to invest in something that's already failed once."
One has to question if Mr. Buffy has ever bothered to view the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer film before providing his analysis for failure. Joss Whedon's dissatisfaction with the Hollywood version of his vision for Buffy is why the series became a reality. The acclaimed success for the Gellar Buffy in contrast to the film had nothing to do with their respective formats, and everything to do with the writing, casting, creative freedom and "dark" edge brought out in the broadcast version. Had Mr. Whedon been allowed to bring this Buffy to theaters originally, there would not have been a series, but instead another "franchise" for the Hollywood suits to ruin. Buffy would probably have run a similar course to Batman, initially successful but having to eventually return from campy Hollywood sequels to its "darker" origin.
It would appear that Mr. Prinze Jr.'s opinion is as lacking in true understanding of what makes Buffy the Vampire Slayer successful, as were the Hollywood executives responsible for the debacle of a film. Instead he should take his own advice and remove himself from his new sitcom, since they have certainly been done before, and failed more than once!
Alex Ladnyk
alexanderltd(at)comcast.net
Back to the top.
