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.
n 2002, you published an interview of Richard C. Matheson about an upcoming adaptation of Roger Zelazny's Amber series.
Since this interview, we have no more information about this project. Thousands of fans all over the world are collecting and sending rumors on the Web about this adaption of Roger Zelazny's books. But nobody really knows if this adaptation will be coming soon or not.
May we know today if this project will be realized or not? Lots of fans are waiting for this response.
Jean-Laurent Del Socorro
jeanlaurent_delsocorro(at)yahoo.fr
his is my first letter to Science Fiction Weekly. Most of the debates that I read there, I really couldn't care less about. If I like a show, I watch it. If not, then I don't. If a show offends my sensibilities, then that show is not on my required viewing list (which includes only about four shows at this time). TV and movies are, in fact, only a small diversion in my life. I have a limited amount of time to waste on them.
There is one ongoing argument that I would like to comment on, though. I have no intention of getting in the middle of the debates between creationists and evolutionists, but I am a student of both the Bible and science, and from a close examination of both, I find that they really don't have to contradict each other. They can be sweethearts rather than adversaries. The thing of it is, you can't blindly have faith in what you are told about either, but must investigate matters for yourself. The problem is not with the Bible or science, but with those who are
interpreting what's there, whether it be in the Bible or in the "hard science." Theologians do not agree on what the Bible teaches; likewise, scientists do not all agree on what the "record" proves. One must also realize this simple fact: Science tries to discover and explain HOW things occur; the Bible explains WHY they occur—they have different purposes and objectives. Questions for thought: The science of evolution is only a little over a hundred years old, therefore, should we really believe that all the "facts" are in? Before stating that evolution is proven and closing the book on the matter, let the research continue. Why be so adamant about it? The loudest debater wins? Be tolerant, debate quietly, and let everyone choose to believe as they will, not belittling one another.
That said, one of the main problems I have with both creationists and evolutionists is their adamantly stating the mistaken belief that the Bible teaches that the universe, the earth and everything in them were all created some 6,000 or, according to some, 10,000 years ago in six literal 24-hour days. If God truly is from forever to forever, why did he wait so long, and why be in such a hurry? Take the time to actually read Genesis chapter one, think about what is written there, do a little comparison to word usage in other parts of the Bible, and you'll find that's not what it actually says. It starts out by making the simple statement that in the beginning God created the heavens (universe, in this instance of the word) and the earth. Notice this occurred before the six creative "days" began. Both the Bible and science agree that the universe had a beginning—a sudden burst of energy called the Big Bang by science, "creation" by the Bible (semantics?). How long ago? Scientists' estimates of 15 billion years or so ago is as good a guess as any; the Bible doesn't say. After this initial creation, then the six creative days began, and what is said deals with development upon the Earth. If you follow what is listed in those creative days, you will find that, while not a treatise on science, the Bible's explanation of the events that occurred and their order is not inconsistent with what scientists have discovered so far. One thing to note: The Bible speaks as if an observer was on the Earth viewing matters. Therefore, when it speaks of the sun and moon, day and night, it is not speaking of the literal creation of these (that had already occurred before the creative days had begun, remember?), but as to when they were visible from that observer's standpoint on Earth.
As for how long these creative "days" were, again, the Bible doesn't really state. Often, when used in the Bible, a day can mean varying lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. A creative day could even be thousands or millions of years long, and each day did not have to be the same length as another!
As for the argument about whether creation or intelligent design should be taught in the schools, personally, I hope not. Would I trust a teacher, or anyone else for that matter, who doesn't share my well-studied beliefs to be able to adequately explain such important matters to my children to my satisfaction? Hardly! Leave science to the schools. Faith in God begins at home and at your place of worship.
Remember, science and the Bible are not necessarily exclusive of each other.
Thanks for the soap box.
John Clemons
jclemons(at)naxs.com
peaking as a medical professional (registered nurse for 13 years, oncology and maternity), I do NOT think there was intelligent design behind the human body, or your back wouldn't give out so easily! ("Americans Aren't Afraid") To say nothing of squeezing a 6-to-8-pound lump, large end first, through something the size of a knothole. Trust me, if there is an intelligent designer, he or she or they were stoned when they designed the majority of us.
Jessica S. Lucens
lucens(at)earthlink.net
ith all due respect to Mr. LaFevers ("Americans Aren't Afraid"), you clearly fall into the camp of the anti-scientific and anti-evolution group of Americans who don't really understand biological sciences and prefer to insult science and scientists in the biological fields rather than provide one shred of true evidence that evolution does not happen. Nor can you provide one scientifically based alternate theory. Evolutionary theory is a sound basis for biological science. To what "holes" and what contradictions are you referring?
(Again, a scientific theory is the best explanation of natural phenomena, based on the largest amount of currently available information. "Theory" does not imply that a particular explanation is not fundamentally sound.)
Furthermore, stating that evolutionary theory is "idiotic" and only understandable by "uneducated fools" is insulting, incorrect and in itself contradictory. The more you truly understand about evolution and biology and the scientific process, the more evolution makes sense as the most logical explanation for the diversity of life and complexity of biological forms and processes. Just because you or anyone else doesn't fully understand a scientific process doesn't mean it doesn't happen or exist. I for one don't understand high-energy physics, but that doesn't mean that the weak and strong electromagnetic forces don't exist.
To say that Stephen J. Gould and E.O. Wilson (and Charles Darwin, for that matter) were uneducated fools is unbelievably naive.
David Brauner
mozart827(at)yahoo.com
hank you, Jessica ("Frodo Is Master, Sam Is Man"), for a clear and accurate explanation of the relationship between Sam and Frodo in the context of the society that Tolkein lived and wrote in, but a social order that is frequently misunderstood in this age. Heterosexual male bonding is still common, we need friends of both sexes in a well-rounded life, but those friendships do not need to lead to a sexual relationship, either heterosexual or homosexual, to be "complete," nor is it even desirable that they do so.
Personally, I have several very close female friends as well as male friends whom I love dearly, but sex is not what I want with or from them. The friendship is complete and good as it is. I've read the trilogy many times, as well as seeing the movie version, and understand the "Frodo/master" "Sam/man" loyal friend/follower relationship as Tolkien, and you, describe it, and see no conflict, sexual or other, in his service to Frodo in the war of the Rings and his settling down with Rosie Cotton after his war was won.
David S.
gunnera4(at)yahoo.com
comment on Anne Jensen's recent letter ("Faith Should Be Consistent") reviewing Susan Ivanova's beliefs. She states, "After that single episode there was never a reference to her faith, nor did we see her doing anything remotely Jewish." Here again is a comment that is not based in fact. Early on in season two, Susan wished Capt. Sheridan a "happy Hanukkah," and the final episode of season two showed Susan lighting a menorah. These are just two quick references that came to mind as I read Ms. Jensen's letter. The point seems to be that an entire episode does not have to be structured around these two events in order to indicated how beliefs are still part of the character.
Brad LaForme
ai035(at)hwnc.org
atrick Baker ("Ivanova Rates Low on Kinsey's Scale") says that Ivanova could not be gay because she "thought about a relationship with Marcus," that it was a one-time fling with Talia and that her old boyfriend showed up on one episode. Sorry to burst his bubble, but that mirrors many gay people's pasts. Star Trek: The Next Generation had an episode about "gay" characters (without actually calling them that), and there are gay-written Star Trek novels floating around. So what if there are gay characters? Just as with the rest of the real world, they do exist, so again, who cares? Perhaps you need to look at Capt. Jack in the last few episodes of the latest Doctor Who episodes, where he says he is a modern 51st-century kinda guy!
Paul Alberstat
paul(at)mindguy.com
few months ago I spent four days on a couch, cuddling up with my 7-, 9- and 11-year-olds, moving only for the essentials such as food and sleep. We were all desperate to learn what a Horcrux was, the importance of the half-blood prince, and what Malfoy and Snape were up to.
Since then, the oldest two have reread the latest Harry Potter book several times and reread the earlier books as well. All three have talked nonstop about their theories of what would happen next, and their anticipation of the newest movie. However, once again, filmmakers have destroyed a much-anticipated, fun, family-movie event through their lack of imagination. Goblet of Fire has been rated PG-13.
I realize I'm opening myself to another landslide of criticism, after I previously requested a PG-version of Star Wars III in addition to the PG-13 release. After watching SW III, I am grateful I did not take my children. I cringed as the 5- and 7-year-olds in front of me watched the slaughter of young Jedi and the graphic mangled body of Anakin. I can guarantee that if Goblet of Fire has a PG-13 rating, it is at the very least inappropriate for my youngest two children, and most likely for my 11-year-old as well. The MPAA is much more lenient in their ratings than they were when I was growing up. I've read that the PG-13 rating is designed to attract more teens, which I believe demonstrates an extraordinarily narrow vision.
It is not necessary to exclude one demographic in order to attract another. The Harry Potter books themselves provide the perfect example of this. The series is essentially a PG-rated children's series that also manages to attract teens and adults. I realize GOF is a darker book than the previous books. However, the History Channel regularly presents realistic shows featuring gladiators, torture, war and genocide, and can still put it together in a way that would receive a PG rating. Sci-fi and fantasy shows have typically done a wonderful job providing intelligent, complex shows that all family members can enjoy, including single adults and independent teens. Twilight Zone, Outer Limits, Doctor Who, Stargate, Star Trek, Indiana Jones I and III and (except for SW III) Star Wars have proven this is possible.
I am not asking for more "children's" programming. I think shows like Barney and Teletubbies are completely inappropriate for children once they send parents running for the nearest exit.
I'm not asking for an end to "adult" television and movies, especially once 9 p.m. arrives. I've watched and enjoyed plenty of shows that are completely inappropriate not only for my children, but often for my mother as well, such as: Tripping the Rift, Sopranos, Oz, Sex and the City, Forever Knight and The Daily Show. My biggest problem with the much-debated Battlestar Galactica is not with the content, but with the decision to use the exact same name as an earlier, much different, series. (Couldn't they just call it Galactica, or add some initials at the end so viewers can easily ID which version is showing?)
However, while there is no lack of television programming or movies directed exclusively for "children" or "adults," families have been stuck primarily with stupid sitcoms and reruns. In the theater, I've gotten used to not being able to watch comic-book-based movies with the kids. I thought we could at least have the historically PG-rated Star Wars and Harry Potter movies to look forward to, but now those have been denied to us as well. I hope the director of Goblet of Fire will reconsider the current direction of the movie and edit it so the children and parents who have anticipated its release for over a year, as well as teenagers, can enjoy it.
Bernadette C. Wilson
BerniKids1(at)hotmail.com
am appaled by Pablo Del Moral's letter ("The Best Things in Life Are Free") in which he is appalled at the language in the letters and demands it be stopped. He seems to forget this little thing called the First Amendment. Someone get this person a copy of the Bill of Rights and highlight the part about free speech.
Kennith Perry
kennithp(at)gmail.com
suppose most religious elements in sci-fi are overlooked by the majority of viewers. Each of the Star Trek series had some touch or mention of religion at one time or another. Sisko was the Prophet of the Bajoran religion; the Logic of Vulcans was a religion of sorts. There were many themes of religion throughout the history of science fiction, including Star Trek, Babylon 5 and Stargate. One theme prevalent is the debunking of religion as myths and folktales and that mankind eventually outgrows the need for religion to explain those things not understood until study through science brings enlightenment. I only hope that, like the characters of science fiction, all men and women can eventually find the common spiritual essence of religion and outgrow the hatred and war caused by religion today.
Joe Castleberry
castleberry.joe(at)ssd.loral.com
ike 9/11, [Hurricane] Katrina is a cataclysmic event in American history, and immediately afterward we know its effects will be far-reaching, but no one, including the pontificating experts, has any idea of just how this deadly storm and its aftermath will change the American way of life and the way we look at ourselves in the world.
Who could have predicted that Pearl Harbor would lead inexorably to the Atomic Bomb? Science fiction has taught us that unexpected ripples unleash unforeseeable waves that will inundate and overwhelm those who never saw them coming.
As you read this letter, based on the success of The Day After Tomorrow and War of the Worlds, Hollywood screenwriters are penning remakes of When Worlds Collide and Poseidon Adventure, two landmark "disaster" films. But now that we have seen the reality of disaster up close and very personal, one wonders how many of us will pay to see a fictional disaster created for our entertainment.
If anything positive can come in the wake of Katrina, it might be the beginning of the end of "disaster" movies.
Kevin Ahearn
Dorothydspr(at)aol.com
egarding page Toward the Terra: The reviewer there does not apparently know the origin of the story Toward the Terra is based on, and discusses Toward the Terra not realizing its source is actually American. The talk at the end about the psychology of Japanese society that could be analyzed based on the show is a little misplaced, considering the following:
Slan was written by A.E. Van Vogt in 1939/1940, first serialized in what became Analog magazine, which at the time was Astounding Science Fiction. I have the hardcover around here somewhere, yellowed pages and all—I found it at a thrift store some years back for a quarter, I think (lots of cheap books at places like that).
If it is of interest to you, Slan itself was indirectly inspired by Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell (under the pen name of Don A. Stuart), later made into two not-so-good movies both called The Thing. It might not seem of importance these days, but at the time it was written, pretty much all of the SF that had alien invaders had Earth's butt handed to it by them—Who Goes There? was the exact opposite—it was about the ingenuity of humans surviving even against the "superior" alien invader. More than just that, but that was one primary difference. The other primary type of SF in that era was just humans exploring the world, or the universe, but not encountering anything smarter than them. That is what set Van Vogt off on his successful SF writing career (after not being very good at the rest of what he'd tried before, in and out of that field)—putting humans out there exploring the new and different; measuring against what they find (or what finds them). Sometimes humans are lacking, sometimes superior, sometimes equal. Sometimes afraid, sometimes joyous, sometimes peaceful, others warring.
I guess it's what started me out on liking SF, actually—those kinds of stories that show us what humanity can be, both good and bad.
I'd have to say, based on what I've seen on the web about it, Toward the Terra is more than influenced by Slan. The main character of Slan is Jommy Cross, that in Toward the Terra is Jomi Shin. The police state, the Slan themselves (called Mu in TtT), the system of planned children, the age 14 wakepoint, all the things I can find about TtT (without having seen it) are all integral parts of both stories.
I am definitely going to have to rent TtT, because Slan is an interesting ride—I'd love to see it told in anime form, by such a different culture (Japan of the late 1970s) from what Slan was created from (an America just coming out of the Depression, by a man who was deeply affected by it).
Michael Elliott
amberwolf(at)cox.net
Reviewer Tasha Robinson responds:
I'd certainly suggest watching Toward the Terra before making any judgments about its story. Much like A Tree of Palme (a much more recent anime film with clear roots in Carlo Collodi's Pinocchio), it wears its influences openly but also draws on anime genre standards and strong Japanese plot influences. It is not simply a straight-up anime adaptation of Slan.
Best,
Tasha
Back to the top.
