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.
greatly enjoyed Mr. Clute's review [of Stark and the Star Kings by Edmond Hamilton and Leigh Brackett] this week (as ever with his reviews).
I thought to elaborate on some of the bibliographic details. It is indeed distressing that the Haffner Press collection does not include very much information on this subject: This seems to me to be important in any collection, but particularly important in a collection of this nature—a posthumous collection of historical as well as literary interest. So shame on them for not including a more rigorous publication history of the Stark and Star King stories, and indeed for not including an introduction discussing their history. (I would have been particularly interested in some mention of the relationship of the Skaith books to the earlier Stark stories.)
The history of "Black Amazon of Mars" and "Queen of the Martian Catacombs," and their expansion into the short novels published as Ace Doubles, is a bit complicated. I'll quote from my review of the Ace Double:
People of the Talisman is an expansion of "Black Amazon of Mars," which appeared in the March 1951 Planet Stories. (Another story in that issue is one of the all-time classic "Brackett-like" Mars stories, Poul Anderson's "Duel on Syrtis.") The original story is about 23,000 words long, the expansion about 38,000 words. The Secret of Sinharat is an expansion of "Queen of the Martian Catacombs," which appeared in the Summer 1949 issue of Planet Stories. The original is about 21,000 words, and the expansion is to some 28,000 words. I have seen it asserted, both on the Web and in the Clute/Nicholls Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, that the 1964 expansions were actually done by Brackett's husband, Edmond Hamilton. I don't know if this is true (Clute actually writes "reported expanded for book publication by Edmond Hamilton"), though Hamilton did contribute a brief biographical note on Brackett to the Ace Double edition.
I had previously read the Ace Double versions of these stories, and for this review I read the Planet Stories versions, with an eye to comparison. This was rather interesting. The Secret of Sinharat is a modest expansion, concentrated in the last couple of chapters, with some changes to incident (a character Stark kills in the original is killed by the villainess in the expansion) and with a slight alteration to the concluding message from the heroine to Stark. The changes in People of the Talisman are much more extensive, and they start earlier. Many of the basic elements of the story are the same, but there are radical changes. The nature of the aliens encountered in the closing chapters is wholly different. The ending is completely different. The motivations, and the final decision, of the heroine are radically different (and her hair color changes as well!). It's pretty much a complete rewrite from about the third chapter on. I would say that both People of the Talisman and "Black Amazon of Mars" are worth reading on their own.
So—it's a shame Haffner didn't see fit to expound on this history in their book. I do note, however, that if Hamilton did indeed do the early-'60s expansions of "Black Amazon of Mars" and "Queen of the Martian Catacombs" to the Ace Double versions, those books represent another collaboration (besides "Stark and the Star Kings") between he and Brackett.
It does appear that this Haffner edition does represent the first reprinting of those two Stark stories in their original forms, and they are well worth reading in those forms. So for that at least we can be glad!
Rich Horton
richard.horton(at)sff.net
Columnist John Clute responds:
It was good to see Rich Horton's detailed expansion of my references to the Brackett stories—good for two reasons. First because he shows how interesting and vital bibliography is to any informed reading of the classics of SF; second because, a few months ago, I suffered a (moderately small) flood in my storage area, exactly where my paperback Bracketts were shelved. The Secret of Sinharat was destroyed, and I had to wing it. So double thanks.
Best,
John
wanted to make an obvious point in regards to Bernadette C. Wilson's e-mail, "Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13," that what is written on paper is quite different when experienced on film. (Potential spoilers ahead if you haven't read the book!)
Reading that a dragon tried to fry Harry to a crisp and seeing the re-creation on film will undoubtedly create two completely different emotional responses. No one screams when it's in black and white on a page, but seeing that dragon's teeth coming at them from a 20-foot movie screen will have kids jumping into Mommy's lap and sleeping in her bed for a week.
How do you film that to be PG-13? Make the dragon nicer? Should we rename him "Puff"? Should Cedric just get beaten up rather than drop dead? Should the giant spider be not so giant? Violence is violent. You can't change the nature of the act without changing the nature of the story. If we can agree with that, then we're left with the fact that the art forms are consumed differently. Print plays on the imagination, whereas film attacks the senses. The intensity of the violence is mitigated by one's imagination in a book, but on film the full force of the violence must be apparent. To hold back would be like writing "Cedric went to live on a farm" instead of "Cedric dropped dead."
Telling someone the story and seeing it yourself are never the same. It's like the old saying, "I guess you had to be there."
Tom Loveman
tloveman(at)mac.com
n response to Bernadette Wilson's plea for a PG-rated Goblet of Fire ("Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13,"), I must say that she has the wrong idea about it. Firstly, the filmmakers do not set the ratings standards, so it's not the director's fault if he wants to make a film true to Rowling's book and the MPAA gives it a PG-13. Honestly, how could they not give it a PG-13? Granted, 20 years ago it probably would have earned a PG, but we are now victims of a system of inequity. These are the days when Lilo & Stitch earns a PG for no reason.
[Warning: Harry Potter spoilers follow.]
All of Ms. Wilson's children have read the books. All the books. They read them together. Well, I have to ask how one can calmly read of the Sectumsempra spell (in which characters are gashed with large bleeding wounds) and not think there will be a PG-13. Goblet of Fire is particularly going to be subject to it, as I can assure you is Order of the Phoenix. In GOF, the climax of the story is the return of Voldemort, in a sequence chilling enough in print. He is resurrected with blood; a character hacks off his own hand. People drop dead like Tasha Yar. To faithfully depict this to readers of the book means that it must have a PG-13. Be grateful that the filmmakers don't go crazy and get an R. They know who their audience is, and they know readers will know what's coming.
Oh, and Indiana Jones III, which was cited [in Ms. Wilson's letter], was, in fact, rated PG-13.
If all of your children have read of these things, I don't see how seeing them onscreen will be very much different. This is not a PG-rated book. I certainly do not agree that "filmmakers have destroyed a much-anticipated, fun, family movie event through their lack of imagination." Rather, any such perceived "destruction" is due not to their lack of imagination, but to their loyalty to the imagination of one J.K. Rowling.
Jon Baril
TrekBeatTK(at)aol.com
'm sure that Pablo Del Moral is quite capable of clarifying his position in response to Kennith Perry's comment ("Free Speech Shouldn't Be Forgotten") to his letter ("The Best Things in Life Are Free"), but I wanted to put in my two credits' worth and speak for the percentage of us who deduced Mr. Del Moral was making a joke directed at those who get in high dudgeon over some minor issue. The line "And, if I rearrange a few words, I can even read 'penis!'" was sort of a giveaway, as well as the entire last paragraph. This is known as "being sarcastic."
Hopefully, Mr. Perry realized his conclusion-jumping after posting his letter.
Just noticed something. Clicking to Mr. Del Moral's letter from Mr. Perry's response reveals an interesting clue. The last word in the URL box is "sarcasm." Guess the editor figured it out, too.
Linda Stoops
jassmoris(at)yahoo.com
ennith Perry's letter to SF Weekly entitled "Free Speech Shouldn't Be Forgotten" once again draws an oft-repeated, but erroneous, conclusion regarding the nature of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The First Amendment does not ensure the right to speak one's mind whenever and wherever one chooses. It does not guarantee a forum for one's speech, nor does it mean an audience must listen. What the First Amendment says is that one's right to speak freely will not be infringed upon by the U.S. government.
Private citizens and entities are another matter. If you decide to exercise your right to free speech in my office and I don't care to hear what you have to say, I can demand that you leave and have you removed if you do not comply.
Similarly, the SCI FI Channel/SF Weekly is within its Constitutional rights to not publish anything it doesn't deem fit for its periodicals. Because they are a private organization and not a government agency, should they decide to edit or censor a letter for language or content they deem inappropriate, they wouldn't be violating anyone's First Amendment rights by doing so.
Roman Gheesling
tienlung(at)hotmail.com
n response to Kevin Ahearn's letter, "Katrina Destroys Disaster Desire," the world will always be interested in viewing any disaster-oriented media.
In general, as a species, our human nature borders on the edge of an abyss of despair, selfishness and destruction. The world's mass media (including Hollywood) has successfully tapped our morbid fascination for other people's misery. Disasters usually increase viewership and thus create greater profits. Whether you are viewing laser-guided bombs being dropped on military targets in Iraq or watching a Category 4 hurricane rip the roofs off buildings, the mass media understands human nature and is capitalizing on it.
What fascinates me is people's reactions after a disaster occurs (whether in fictional media or not). The Day After Tomorrow sparked greater debate about global warming. The recent tsunami and Katrina sparked the charitable side of human nature in the
form of people and governments sticking their hands in their pockets to provide monetary help to the unfortunate and to open their homes to people who lost theirs.
On the other side of the coin, I personally have heard remarks of "why would people live in an area that is inviting a cataclysmic disaster?" The surprise of the living conditions that many of the residents of the bayou areas were living in and that the storm surge from Katrina was much worse than it should have been due to the decades of human-influenced destruction of the local wetlands that protect the coastlines. It is a shame that it takes a disaster to make people look outside of their micronized enviroments to see what is going on in the world around them and to react to what they see.
Human nature tells all.
David Richmond
babcomdave(at)yahoo.com
ou don't know how good you've got it!
I've been a subscriber to Science Fiction Weekly on and off for a few years now, and I always read the Letters section, mostly because I get a good laugh at all the complaining and general whining that occurs there! When I read your reviews of all the sci-fi-related shows that air in the U.S., I can't help but to be envious.
You see, I happen to have been born a Norwegian, and as such, it's a miracle that I even managed to discover the great genre of science fiction! (Thank you, George Lucas!) For we are starved for good sci-fi shows over here! Oh sure, we get the occasional show, like the X-Files, or similar shows, but rarely do we get any of the really new ones. Right now,
for instance, the only sci-fi show running is reruns of Roswell! (They showed Lost, though, just a few months behind the U.S. airings! And they showed The 4400, but I managed to miss it.)
There are so many shows out there I wanna see, like Battlestar Galactica, or Stargate SG-1 (which we had for a year or two, but now it's vanished without a trace!). So, on the extremely rare occasion that we do get a good show over here, we don't much care if they smoke or have sex or swear (like ordinary people do!). The only censorship that should be applied to television is the viewer's discretion.
If you take offense at what you see, change the channel! Stop complaining about it, and get on with your life! And if your children watch stuff they're not supposed to see, then why do you let the TV be your babysitter? And why don't you have more control over what your children are
watching? And, even if they do watch people smoke or have sex or whatever, isn't it your job as a parent to talk to them about it, and explain how the world works? Children can't be protected from everything. Sad, but true.
My apologies for these ramblings, but I did get a bit fired up. Being a Norwegian sci-fi lover is generally a frustrating experience, and sometimes we do need to let off steam.
In conclusion, I need to say this: You Americans are so incredibly spoiled! You have it so good, and yet all you can do about it is complain, apparently! And I'm not just talking about sci-fi here, but that's another matter. (Don't get me wrong, I love America and Americans.)
Jon A. Schjelderup
jonas301972(at)yahoo.no
atching events unfold and seemingly worsen day by day in New Orleans, I keep trying to understand not how, but what, is happening. The whole situation seems beyond comprehension and completely surreal, despite the graphic images seen daily on the news.
Images from literature and movies fill the void in my mind. The destruction of the levees reminds of the tale of Atlantis mixed with the biblical tale of Sodom and Gomorrah, the evacuation of trapped people is akin to the movie Escape From New York, the fires remind me of the burning of Des Moines in Stephen King's The Stand, the looters are reminiscent of the vampires preying on the weak and defenseless in an Anne Rice novel (although the vampires seem to have more ethics and character than any looter), all set inside the context of an old episode of the Twilight Zone.
I mean absolutely no disrespect to all those hurting on so many levels, I only point out that when human suffering flies past a certain point, I wonder if the only way the mind can deal with it is in the context of allegory.
I wonder, 5,000 years from now, how will our descendants tell the story of New Orleans?
Joseph O'Neil
joneil(at)multiboard.com
estability.
That's it.
Science is a process, not a random statement. If you have a Theory or a Finding, you publish it and the community tests your ideas. The Theory of Natural Selection has survived 150 years of peer review of specific hypothesis. Religions have survived longer, but only on blind faith. With science, people can test your hypothesis. Nothing in creationism is testable, therefore it's not an alternative to science. The two are mutually incompatible. Natural Selection isn't a matter of faith. You can have faith in what you want, but don't call it science by trying to dress it up with semantics about Genesis or a designer, etc.
And let's not forget Creationism's most devious current ploy. They'll point to a debate such as this and say, "Look, it's a genuine controversy; therefore we should teach both" (natural selection and so-called "intelligent design"). Even sending this mail makes me nervous that it will be co-opted as further proof to someone here that there's a valid controversy.
Science welcomes everyone by allowing ideas to be tested. Religions are exclusionary. Their first rule, regardless of what they say, is a required belief in their specific version of the "truth." Science makes no absolute claims, since all hypotheses, etc., are open to further investigation, refinement or refutation.
The Enlightenment: Shining light into the dark areas of a physical universe. Still a worthy ideal. Glad I live in Europe and don't have to endure much of the creationist nonsense.
Donal Buckley
[address withheld by request]
s a delayed response to Patrick Baker ("Ivanova Rates Low on Kinsey's Scale") (I was upgrading my primary
computer), I don't recall that I stated categorically that Ivanova was "lesbian," but that she had an obvious same-sex relationship with Talia. I believe I stated that I wasn't sure if it meant she had a preference for same-sex relationships, or if it meant that sexual preference was more of a "yes or no" situation. In other words, perhaps in this version of the future, same-sex relationships are of no more consequence that any other relationship, even one where sexual contact doesn't occur.
In another episode of Babylon 5, Garibaldi and Sinclair are seen washing their
hands in, and then exiting, what is obviously a unisex restroom, something that would also be unlikely today. (Except, of course, for single-toilet restrooms that are meant to be used by one person at a time.) The same unisex restrooms/locker rooms are also seen in several episodes of Battlestar Galactica, and the characters are also very much used to this situation.
Is it so far-fetched to think that people would have completely different attitudes about relationships in some distant future or faraway corner of the universe when compared to our idea of what is normal and acceptable? Must all science fiction be held in lockstep with our own moral/religious/racial/relationship values? Is it not the purpose of fiction in general to present a story set in a time place that is freely defined by the author for the sole purpose of thought-provoking entertainment? Or are there a lot of people reading these letters who honestly believe that only our own current values should be presented, and all other thoughts should be cast aside?
Bill Olenick
wolenick(at)cox.net
egarding the review of A Sound of Thunder: The statement is made that the title of The Butterfly Effect is a reference to the Bradbury story. I think not.
It is a reference, instead, to the oft-cited premise of chaos theory, that the flapping of a butterfly's wings in one part of the world could trigger a hurricane in another. If memory serves, there's even a statement to that effect at the beginning of the movie. I suppose the originator of that aspect of chaos theory, whoever that may be, may have had the Bradbury icon in mind when he/she came up with it, but I've never seen that connection made.
Jerry Petersen
jerpete(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
