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.
arbara Goldstein makes a good point about science ("Science Is Better Than You Think"). Scientists do largely agree that global warming is a problem. It's how much of that problem is caused by humans that scientists are still unsure of.
However, she seems to have missed the real reason why so many people try to make out that it's all false. Although people like to site lack of evidence as their reason for not believing certain findings, the issue of evidence is, in fact, small-fry compared with the real reason why so many across the English speaking world (it's not just America) get as sceptical as this. The true reason is a general stubbornness combined with animosity towards new scientific theories and anything even remotely intellectual. Why else would we have euphemisms such as "nerd," "geek" and "swot?"
I doubt very much that the reason why America refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty was to do with disbelief in "global warming." More likely it was to do with the shock and horror that someone dared to tell the U.S. how to run their industries. Another case I read about recently that demonstrates how distant the general public are from science is an American survey that found that, even today, 60 percent of Americans still believe in creationism. With less than 40 percent believing in evolution. What's going on there? It can't all be down to ignorance of science, surely? One last example of this stubbornness is that whole fiasco a few months back concerning the head of Harvard University, who's only sin was to suggest, what most scientists already reckon on anyway, that men and women differ in their mental abilities. He suggested that men are better than women at maths apparently.
So why do people find this stuff so hard to swallow? Why do the very mention of the words "evolution" or "gender differences" make people come out in a rash of indignation? What are they afraid of!?
Darren Simpson
darrensimpson10(at)hotmail.com
ow that we have marked the 60th anniversaries of the use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki we may also want to take note of a visionary who had written about the geopolitical implications of using radioactive weapons years before such weapons existed.
Robert A. Heinlein, writing as Anson MacDonald, wrote "Solution Unsatisfactory" which was first published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1940.
This story discussed the development of radiological weapons to destroy enemies by blanketing cites, airports and other targets with radioactive dusts in a 1940s world timeline.
The effects upon a militarized and warring Germany as well as other countries is discussed in some detail. The destruction and changes to normal daily life, politics, global development as well as the development of the arms race certainly impressed me again that Heinlein made a very cogent extrapolation of what to expect in the immediate aftermath of WWII.
The world's nuclear legacy is still very much alive at this point with "Solution Unsatisfactory."
Marc B. Ehrenpreis
[address withheld by request]
hank you for having some excellent reviews in your "Off the Shelf" column of Science Fiction Weekly. But I do have a complaint. You seem to only review hard cover books. I visit my local science-fiction bookshop enough to realize there are many excellent paperback books that are being put out written by good authors.
In addition, many of us are not in the economic strata, that we can buy a $26 book once a week. It's a rare pleasure for me to buy a hard cover book.
So please add more paperback books or add a section to your "Off the Shelf" column for specific paperback reviews.
Adam Rautio
adamisky(at)hotmail.com
Editor Scott Edelman responds:
Looking back at the last quarter of Science Fiction Weekly, I see that our reviewers have tackled 16 hardcovers and 10 paperbacks. While that 60%/40% split definitely skews toward the more expensive novels, we don't ignore paperbacks. We do our best to reflect the reality of the marketplace.
We try to review the newest and most important books while they are still relevant. If we waited to review each new hardcover book only after it was published as a paperback, it wouldn't be serving our readers.
Best,
Scott
ow! I cannot believe all the complaints about Tripping the Rift! ("Sponsors Don't Really Care", "Tripping Isn't Porn—It's Crap", "Racy Rift Ads Should Run Later", "Sexist Is As Sexist Does") I guess some people have nothing better to do with their time. Want a simple solution? Do as I do, I don't like it so I don't watch it ... now tell me, what is so hard about that?
Now, as to the complaints about the changes on SG-1 ("Stargate Facts Tell Different Story", "New Stargate Season Stinks", "SG-1's New Season Rocks") it seems everyone, well, almost everyone, is a critic lately. I, for one, think the changes are A-OK! OK, yes I miss Richard Dean Anderson. I've been a huge fan of him since the first episode of MacGyver, but I can live with that as long as SCI FI keeps SG-1 alive! My family has watched it since day one and for those of you who haven't noticed, there were plenty of changes along the way. Did it hurt the show? It's now in it's ninth season, so you tell me. With the addition of Ben Browder and Claudia Black, just think about all those Farscape fans [who] are now watching SG-1! (Yes, I am a Farscape fan!)
As for complaining about alien swear words: Come on, get a life! What is so wrong with "frak," "frell" and "dren," just to name a few? The Klingons have a whole language full of swear words and a dictionary to look up their meanings. Did you complain about that? We are talking fiction here, so what's the problem?
Jerome Offhaus
ojrryndbrb(at)msn.com
recent promo shows what's wrong with Tripping the Rift. It's offensive, but only in that it fails to
be funny or sexy.
A quick look at the "pinup" of Six in the SCI FI Magazine shows why it's not sexy: For some reason (I blame Ms. Jackson), Six has no nipples. It's that "tease" of sex (no more sexuality than a PG-13 rating would allow!) that makes it, ultimately, un-sexy.
As to why it's not funny? Hey, to quote Steve Allen's character from My Blue Heaven, everybody thinks they have a sense of humor. Not everyone does.
Maybe I would ignore the terrible jokes if I found it sexy. Maybe I could ignore over-the-top sexuality if it was funny. But since I find it to be neither, I don't watch. I can only hope enough of my fellow viewers do the same, and this show gets canceled faster than light speed.
Fred Garber
tinkergnome99(at)yahoo.com
Assistant Editor Brian responds:
Not to be nitpicky (why do people always say that before they're about to be nitpicky?), but Steve Allen wasn't in My Blue Heaven. Perhaps you were thinking of Steve Martin?
Best,
Brian
always read the letters section to see what others have to say about the state of sci-fi, but lately its been predominantly folks raging about everything from sex to smoking (or how smokin' the sex is!) and other PC matters, such as diversity.
Please stop the madness! Can't we all just get along! Kennith Perry has it right ("Sponsors Don't Really Care"). Sponsors don't care. Also, just a reminder: We can all vote with our remotes.
Its one thing to gripe about possible cancellations because it has been demonstrated with shows like Buffy and Angel to have some limited effect.
The creative types seem less hurried to alter their vision for the fanbase, even when it has been detrimental to the future of the show.
The virus of political correctness is in danger of destroying TV. As an avid Trek fan, Voyager, for me, became almost unwatchable as I waited each week to see what hostile alien Capt. Janeway wanted to breast feed. Imagine what would happen to an incredible movie like Sin City if it were on a network, or worse, subjected to the PC constraints of some of the letter writers.
You like the show. You don't like the show. The science is wrong. The science is strong. It's fine to let your feelings be known, but the multi-week threads debating about our "rights" as viewers are tiresome and just plain stupid. We don't have any! All we have are opinions and everyone has one (or more).
I hope these "debates" will cease. I have a "right" to a less whiny letters section.
Doug Dale
ddale(at)coda.cc
was perplexed by Carl Shroeder protesting the current Fantastic Four movie as an affront to the "superior" Corman film about Marvel Comics' superhero family ("One Good Reason to Hate Four"). Many Fantastic Four fans, on-line or off, have given Corman's movie lukewarm reviews. Such a response would understandably limit the film to the bootleg market.
Corman's film was also a major reason that FF fans expected the worse when a new film directed by Tim Story (Barbershop) was announced. Comic fansites like Newsarama became host to hundreds of comic readers decrying the new Fantastic Four months before its debut. However, after seeing the film, these same critics did a complete 180 degree turn. They had to admit that the enjoyable movie was true to the spirit of the Stan Lee/Jack Kirby Fantastic Four comics that inspired it.
Fantastic Four also impressed moviegoers beyond the comics crowd as demonstrated by the audience I saw it with. Those who loved the movie often noted that its light-hearted escapism was a refreshing break from the serious, even gloomy sci-fi/fantasy films that have dominated the summer. Sure, Star Wars: Episode III Batman Begins and War of the Worlds have their merits. But it was nice that the heroes of Fantastic Four weren't morally ambiguous, excessively neurotic or motivated by the murder of a loved one. Even The Thing doesn't become so self-absorbed in coping with his monstrous appearance that he can't selflessly help others.
That was the point so many critics missed about Fantastic Four: Not every superhero flick has to be a "grim and gritty" deconstruction of the genre. If that were the case, then superheroes really would be a one-note genre instead of a creatively unlimited one.
As a result, Fantastic Four has exceeded box-office expectations by raking in $148 million so far in the U.S. alone. The movie has emerged as one of the few bright spots in an otherwise disappointing summer for Hollywood. Not surprisingly, Marvel and 20th Century Fox are already talking about a Fantastic Four sequel.
So, Mr. Shroeder, I suggest you see the Fantastic Four so you can fairly judge it. Boycotting the movie over imagined slights against Mr. Corman simply is not a good enough reason to hate the movie.
Frederick D. Weaver
duane1061(at)verizon.net
hile I agree with most of what J. Hamilton wrote in his letter ("Everyone Is Underrepresented"), I must disagree with this: "Being
Jewish, I am always aware that not a single show on television that I have ever seen has had an observant Jewish person for more than a single episode."
The character of Susan Ivanova on Babylon 5 was a Russian Jew, and she was on the show for four years. They even had an episode, following the death of her father, where she sat shiva (forgive if I misspell).
And this series was created by, and mostly written by, a self-proclaimed atheist, J. Michael Straczynski.
I agree that there haven't been many shows showing a Jewish character, but to say that there has never been one? For shame ...
Az Parris
asbrand(at)yahoo.com
s far as the debate on sexual orientation in sci-fi goes ("Story Must Come Before Orientation", "Not Everyone Is a Homosexual", "Lackey Offers Realistic Homosexuals"), everyone seems to be forgetting one obvious case. I may have missed it if it was mentioned, but what of Babylon 5 characters Susan Ivanovich and Talia Winters? I don't know if their relationship was based on long-term preferences or if, in that version of the future, preference is more of matter of "yes or no" than male or female, but they no doubt had a physical relationship and, later, Susan admitted that she "... may have loved Talia."
It's only one example, but I am sure there have been others that are being forgotten.
Bill Olenick
wolenick(at)cox.net
realize I'm a week late, but I wanted to respond to the letter from M. Annette Watlington ("SF Characters Need to Come Out"), in which she indicated that Frodo and Sam from Lord of the Rings were gay. They are not. At least, Sam certainly isn't—I wonder if Ms. Watlington missed the scene in the Return of the King movie where Sam remembers "Rosie Cotton dancing ... she had ribbons in her hair. If ever I was to marry someone, it would have
been her." Then, of course, there's the scene near the end of the movie where Sam and Rosie do, indeed, get married. (And they eventually had 13 children!)
It boggles my mind when people say Sam is gay. Frodo and Sam were extremely close friends, but friends only. In no way, shape or form were they lovers.
Emily Stienson
[address withheld by request]
Back to the top.
