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.
enjoyed your editorial, entitled "The Odds of Being Uneven" in issue 438 of Science Fiction Weekly. Certainly the problem of uneven distribution of the fruits of scientific and technological advance is one of great challenges of our age.
However, the challenge needs to be seen in two segments: Those who cannot take advantage of those fruits, and those who (for various reasons) choose not to take advantage. In the first segment we have those have no access to the future, those for whom geographic or cultural isolation bars them from those fruits. These include indigenous peoples living in the Amazonian rain forest or sub-Sahara Africa. Bringing the future to these peoples seems almost straightforward. Our problem lies with the other segment.
Those that choose not to take advantage of the future include anti-technology groups such as the Amish, various counterculture "simplicity" advocates, populations living under Sharia law in many Middle-Eastern countries and, regrettably, many inner-city poor. For those that have seen the "future" and turned away, I can say no more than to promise I won't fly my jetpack over their compounds and scare the livestock. Yet even these people must come to some accommodation with the future. (Stephenson's The Diamond Age posits them selling status-bringing craftwork to those whom technology has provided wealth.)
Those whose access to the future is barred by cultural taboos are the subject of a whole 'nother editorial.
But the problem of the American inner-city poor is not that they do not have access to the "future," that is, the fruits of science and technology; it is that many of them do not understand how their futures must change how they behave in the present. (And by poor I do not mean those who do not have money at any particular instant. I have been broke and homeless in a strange city during one of the technology busts of the 1970s and 1980s.) Poverty is a cultural problem that has resisted the best efforts of armies of dedicated social-service workers funded with multiple trillions of dollars over the last three decades.
You write:
What the despair dredged up last week showed was that those with access to cars and credit cards (all 20th-century inventions) could at least make an attempt to escape, while those without could not.
Cars and credit cards were accessible to almost anyone in New Orleans who behaved in ways that made them available. The problem was not access. The problem was that their behaviors made the fruits unavailable. To cite an extreme example: If I drive drunk and have my car seized by the police, I will not have a car to evacuate. More commonly, if I cannot (or will not) hold down a paying job, I won't have a credit card to fund my evacuation. This is not to blame the victims trapped in New Orleans by the flooding, which people included many wealthy tourists who were abandoned in their hotels. These people were failed by their mayor, their police department, their governor and the federal bureaucracy.
Again, you write:
I still believe in the future. But we must engineer its approach so that its fruits will be shared by all. Humanity has always been separated into the haves and the have-nots. We have just been reminded of the consequences of that. As the promises of science fiction continue to come true, the gap between those two groups will grow even larger. Isn't it about time we spent as much time and energy solving that problem as we're doing on creating cell phones that will download clips from American Idol even faster for those who can afford them?
Because when I finally am flitting through the skies strapped to my personal jetpack, I don't want to be looking down at those living in poverty below.
I want all of us to be flying high together.
I, too, want all of us (who so choose) to revel in the promise of the future. The problem that we must address is not how to shower (distribute) material things onto the poor, for everyone must have a choice to accept or reject the future. But rather, how can we develop social safety nets that do not provide a disincentive to the virtues of industry, thrift and personal responsibility?
Beryl Gray
berylg(at)gmail.com
e all will be flying high ... as long as we allow the market to do what it does well.
In 2017, when we all do have flying jetpacks, some will have the Lexus version with quiet motors and two passengers and windscreen deflectors and virtual reality entertainment for Mach 3 sprints, while some will have just the basic IslaManila model, which will only reach 500 miles and 500 kph. But anybody who works will have one.
If, in 1920, the government had decided that each person would have a newfangled automobile, then today we'd all still be driving Model Ts, or Xs, with a top speed of 40 mph and any color you want, if you want black.
Don't worry about the unequal distribution of technology, Scott ("The Odds of Being Uneven")—we can all strive for the latest Z3, even if we only drive Geo Metros, like me. We just need to get rid of collectivism and socialism and their most primitive form—tribalism—and the rest will take care of itself, as it has for us.
Arlan Andrews
Arlan(at)thingsto.com
hat's a tough one you've posed. ("The Odds of Being Uneven") Free markets and the "rising water" analogy definitely work only so far—and the mooring ropes are straining—but on the other end of the spectrum consider the socialist economies of Western Europe: With a few notable exceptions, they simply can't compete with the more aggressive markets to their east and west because their people aren't motivated to work more than 30 hours per week. (I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing—valuing hard work is a good thing, but valuing family and other relationships is arguably a better thing.)
The U.S. founding fathers spoke of "enlightened self-interest." The rising water analogy provides pseudo-moral justification for the "self-interest" part but completely ignores the "enlightened" part. The supply-side economists would have us believe otherwise, but really what the analogy says is "Greed is good." To me, "enlightened self-interest" means "work hard to put yourself and your family ahead, but have integrity about it and give back to the ones who aren't as fortunate and/or lucky as yourself." If justice and inter-class goodwill (shhh, we don't have classes in the U.S.) were measurable other than by their absence in crime and other negative statistics, we might have a better picture of what our economic philosophy is doing to our national soul ... but statistics and statisticians lie like everything else tainted by politics, and macroeconomics is always tainted with politics.
As Heinlein said [to paraphrase]: Politics isn't the best game in town, it's just the only game in town. Too bad there isn't another game, one that offers perfect personal motivation, perfect social support and perfect security, all without impinging on our rights as individuals and citizens.
Yeah, right ... that's not happening today except in science fiction. It seems like there are fewer and fewer utopian authors and screenwriters these days, but the work of the ones who have now passed and the few who remain can continue to inspire us to seek new ways to balance economic growth, social justice, the environment and our own base instincts. Those ways—expressed by individuals and groups to their elected representatives and thus passing into law (eventually, and possibly in a very different form)—become the basis for competition among nations. As the developing nations continue to develop and become more aware both of their own power and of the mistakes made by their economic predecessors, the individuals who have historically flocked to the Western democracies—strengthening them thereby—will begin to stay or return home more. Only by achieving a superior intra-national legal/socioeconomic environment can we hope to remain attractive to these individuals, and, in part, that means doing more to reduce the disparities between rich and poor.
So if I'm saying anything, I guess it's to come up with some ideas, tell your congressman and senators and, in 20 years, we'll compare notes!
Thanks for your thought-provoking editorial!
Steve Runyon
stever(at)onproject.com
fter reading Ms. Wilson's letter ("Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13") about the new Harry Potter movie's PG-13 rating and how she feels that it shouldn't be filmed to receive such a rating, I felt I would add my comments to this growing topic of film ratings.
I would like to say first, in regards to Harry Potter in particular, that anyone who has read the novels can tell you that they progress in an increasing number of adult situations. This is due to the fact that in each novel, Harry grows older. By the sixth book, he is 16 years old. At that age, most situations one finds themselves in can easily be considered adult content. Even in the fourth book (where in Harry is 14) he faces situations that factor into a life which has already had him taking on adult responsibilities. Ms. Wilson is, in my opinion, incorrect in assuming that the Harry Potter novels are PG-rated material. Themes of racism, sexual maturity and murder are indeed in the fourth and later novels. I am surprised that she has no problems allowing her children to read and reread these books, yet feels that a PG-13 rating on its movie format means she cannot allow her children to see it.
As for movie ratings, I think that many are in the dark as to why movies even have ratings. I enclose this link to an article on the MPAA Web site written by the MPAA explaining the creation and purpose of movie ratings. http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm
It states that the movie ratings were created to inform parents of the possible content a film might contain. The committee who actually rate movies are composed of adults who possess both some parenting experience or expertise and are mature enough to impose a reasonable rating. Their decision is also based solely on the visual and audio content of the film. They are not allowed to base their decision on inferred or imagined ideas. They are un-biased and uninfluenced by studios, producers and even the MPAA board itself, thus upholding the integrity of the rating a film receives. With the PG-13 rating, its design was to place a more stringent guideline for movies which may not necessarily deserve an R rating, yet contains content which may be more sensitive to younger audiences. It was not designed to attract more teens to movies (which Ms. Wilson was erroneously led to believe). Indeed, the ratings system was never designed to inform an audience of its enjoyment value. Just because a movie is rated PG-13 rather than PG does not mean it is any less enjoyable. It simply contains content that parents should be aware of. Another interesting fact is that movie ratings are completely voluntary. According to the MPAA, movies are not required by any law to even have a rating! They are, by law, not allowed to present any rating which has been copyrighted by the MPAA (G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17) however. Concerning television programming, the SCI FI Channel, other cable networks and broadcasters follow the TV Parental Guidelines. My understanding is that they assign the TV ratings of the programs they show themselves. These ratings, if I am not mistaken, are also voluntary.
I think that many people fail to realize that movie and television ratings are a guideline and not a mandate. They are there to inform parents of a movie's possible content, not to tell parents what they should allow their children to watch. Ms. Wilson used the ratings system perfectly when she went to view Star Wars: Episode III before deciding whether or not to allow her children to see it. However, I am certain she has not seen the Goblet of Fire film, so to decide whether or not she should allow her children to see it before knowing what content the film actually contains, simply because it has a PG-13 rating is, in my opinion, just an overzealous use of the ratings system. To think that you won't be able to enjoy a film because of its rating is ridiculous.
Parents need to stop using the parental ratings systems as a crutch. The ratings are decided by other parents. By using them as a method of determining the entertainment value of a film or program and by not using your own judgment to decide whether the material is suitable for your children, you are essentially allowing others to make your parental decisions. Don't let the ratings tell you how to be a parent. Use them as they were meant to be used: as a guide.
Chris Mihatsch
mihatsch(at)vvm.com
Assisant Editor Brian Murphy responds:
This week's SCI FI Wire poll asks SCIFI.com readers about the Harry Potter PG-13 rating. Check it out here.
Best,
Brian
ith respect to Bernadette Wilson ("Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13"), I suggest that she take another look at the source material. I would submit that the films so far in the series have been arguably more faithful than any other long-running series that has made a successful transition to the the screen. The images are only realized by the director from the imagination of J.K. Rowling. I can appreciate her concerns about harmful images scaring her children: My own children were kept away from Revenge of the Sith because of that very reason, in spite of them enjoying the other five movies immensely.
However, Ms. Wilson's comments about Battlestar Galactica, Star Wars, Harry Potter, et al., being unsuitable for children to watch irks me. Even though the Star Wars movies have been marketed towards children (and we can lay responsibility only at the feet of George Lucas for this), the content is adult. Even though the original Battlestar was popular with children at the time of its original airing, it too dealt with adult themes (the extermination of entire populations is not exactly the sort of issue explored in The Baby-Sitters Club). Harry Potter has been written for mature children who can handle the themes contained within.
I would also humbly suggest to Ms. Wilson that she think about the sort of adult she wishes her children to grow up into. She is suggesting that the programs shown on television (even in a timeslot that indicates parental guidance) or on the big screen, where classification ratings are taken seriously (despite what she states to the contrary), should all be OK for her kids to watch.
This plainly is not so. I love my kids sharing my enjoyment of genre movies and books: My 11-year-old daughter recently read and enjoyed 2001. If I see it at Blockbuster I may well get it out for us to enjoy together. But in no way would I consider letting her read Dhalgren or The Female Man or The Forever War, because even though they are also genre works that I love, they are not suitable for her yet.
Ms. Wilson, you are right to be wary of some things and to worry about how it may affect your children. But blaming filmmakers is not the correct way to respond in this instance. Your children may well be old enough in a year, or two, or three, to enjoy these things. And, speaking as a teacher of primary school children, in a few years they may be better equipped to deal with the themes expressed within.
Ian Banks
[address withheld]
o Tom Loveman ("Changing Violence Changes Story") and Jon Baril ("Goblet Deserves PG-13 Rating"), thank you, gentlemen. I'd hoped to submit my own response to Ms. Wilson's comments ("Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13") with regard to the Potter movie, but wasn't able to get to it in time. However, you gentlemen did a fine job of giving voice to my similar take on the matter. The nature of the Harry Potter books is for each successive storyline to mature along with its three main characters. In Goblet, Harry is 14, and appropriately the story begins to darken considerably. Therefore, if the movies are to remain as true to the books as possible, a PG-13 rating is entirely appropriate for the very different in-your-face visual medium of film. Even the book is not recommended for readers under the age of 9 (and, frankly, given some of the imagery, in my opinion that really depends on the 9-year-old in question). In fact, I have to admit it makes me a bit uncomfortable that Ms. Wilson says she allows her 7-year-old to read the current exploits of a now 16-year-old Harry with a story that is, again, loaded with quite dark, violent and mature imagery. (That said, I'm realistic enough to get that, short of locking the child in his/her room for a few years, there's not much chance of stopping it, so reading the books with them is the right way to go, and I applaud Ms. Wilson for making that effort.)
There are plenty of programs and movies that the whole family can enjoy. Television is loaded with them—shows like Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and others. Channels like the suite of Discovery channels, the History Channel, National Geographic Channel, etc., all have hours and hours of programming appropriate for most viewers, and when not, a warning is given up front. But if Ms. Wilson is referring to pure fictional entertainment, I think part of the problem is the nearly impossible task of creating and sustaining a program that would even begin to hold the interest of Ms. Wilson, her 7-year-old and everyone else in the family in between and that also has the ability to attract enough viewers to attract sponsors to pay for it. Let's face it, what a 7-year-old finds entertaining is usually pretty mind-numbing for an adult, or even an 11-year-old, to sit through. In terms of films, while they may not be as plentiful, they are indeed out there. They just usually deal with subjects like finding Nemo and working at Monsters, Inc. and don't usually deal with subjects like betrayal, murder, torture and revenge like ... what's that "children's" book series again ... Harry Potter?
Lisa Thompson
[address withheld by request]
'd like to take a belated swat at the sexuality flag raised over Babylon 5 as of late. With people making an issue of Ivanova's feelings over Talia Winters, one has to look at the overall series and think hard, very hard.
Yes, Ivanova claimed that she thought she might be in love with Talia, but that was probably one of the least controversial events concerning sex in the station. It was mentioned once and only alluded to several times.
It's a sign of the times that no one (and I mean "no one") has ever mentioned the relationship between Jason Ironheart and Talia: A black man and a white woman. A mere 40 years ago, this would have caused more trouble than George Wallace could have handled. Thank God that's been left behind.
Then there's the other mixed-race issues: G'Kar and his many loves ... he seemed to truly enjoy human women, and it was alluded that he rather liked Centauri women. Again, the implications are clear, and most people watching chuckled and no one said anything!
Then there's Sheridan. If you ignore the fact that he fell in love with and married an alien (read that as someone of another race), then follow the story and realize that his marriage to Delenn wasn't his first, nor his second, but his third marriage!
Oh, and don't forget all the illicit, out-of-wedlock sex going on between other members of the cast and ...
Have you noticed my tongue is in my cheek?
I'm amazed that so much attention has been given to what is actually such a minute portion of one of the greatest science-fiction series in the history of the genre. The series painted a future where people, as a whole, let the affairs of the bedroom stay there. If people were in love, whether or not they were of the same sex or opposite sexes, it was applauded that they were in love and not miserable cretins, and nobody cared whether they were of different colors.
Obviously, we haven't advanced nearly as far as the (admittedly) fictional characters of Bablyon 5 have.
Luckily, we still have some time.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
ll too often these days we see the fanatical side of people who have religious faith. In particular with reference to the evolution-versus-creationist argument. So it was a refreshing change to read the letter from John Clemons ("Science and Bible Don't Contradict"), who declared an interest in both science and Christianity. John's assertion that "you can't blindly have faith in what you are told about either, but must investigate matters for yourself" was a wise observation. As a genuine American once said, on record, "Blind faith in your leaders, or anything, will get you killed." I would add that anything or anyone that cannot stand open and intelligent discussion is not worth much. Some of the best-written SF shows us this, while at the same time providing engrossing entertainment. The brilliant, short-lived series Prey dealt with human evolution, Brimstone featured matters of faith, and the X-Files cleverly partnered someone rooted in hard science with a man who wanted to believe in what amounts to a new religion.
Meanwhile, back on the SFW letters page, Jessica S. Lucens ("Design Wasn't So Intelligent") wryly commented that there was no intelligent design, and as an example cited what others call the miracle of birth. What Jessica and others might like to play around with is the notion that intelligent design does not necessarily mean either perfection or sanity. What if the design of the human form was intended to cause pain? Indeed, it might be argued that our various genetic weaknesses, physiological flaws and horrible susceptibility to diseases are all part of a plan. Perhaps the designer intends the creation to be flawed, and to suffer, as part of a process? Like rats in a vast lab. Whether subjecting billions of humans to this gruesome fate is a sign of cosmic madness is another argument. It would make for great SF TV, if a production company could be found that isn't afraid to risk upsetting those with closed minds.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
o give a B-minus to A Sound of Thunder is to call spam a somewhat decent gourmet food. And that's an insult to spam. With this one review, you have cast doubt upon every review you have ever made. [Reviewer] Dennis [Etchison] must have adored Battlefield Earth.
Jerry Greene
[address withheld]
n response to the review of A Sound of Thunder, I believe I have to
"defend" (if you want to call it that; personally, I thought calling a title a "ripoff" is pretty offensive) the title of the—very intelligent—movie The Butterfly Effect.
It is not a reference to Ray Bradbury's short story, but to chaos theory. There is a quote right at the beginning of the movie, which says: "It has been said that something as small as the flutter of a butterfly's wing can ultimately cause a typhoon halfway around the world." - chaos theory
The Butterfly Effect is the "most common example of [chaos theory]", as stated here: http://www.pithemovie.com/chaos.html. A more professional explanation can be found here: http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html.
The Butterfly Effect did not "rip off" its title from some Ray Bradbury short story. It is a scientific concept.
Martin Roehrs
martinroehrs(at)gmx.net
Back to the top.
