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.
aybe I missed something, and I haven't seen the movie yet, but I don't recall anything indicating that the worlds in the Firefly/Serenity universe are all in one planetary system [as mentioned in Wil McCarthy's column, "Worlds of Serenity"]. I recently rewatched the series on DVD, watched the extras, and listened to several of the commentaries, and I didn't notice anything about the planets being in one system. ... Of course, I didn't notice anything having to do with how the different planets related to each other, or their sun(s). I think there's some talk of one planet being out of the way while traveling to another planet, but this would seem to indicate the planets are relatively fixed in space with relation to each other, i.e., that they are in different systems aways apart from each other.
Also, Wil's comment about their level of technology indicates a lack of knowledge of the series (if his only experience with this universe is the movie, well ... like I said, I haven't seen the movie). In Firefly, it is explicitly stated that the settlers of the terraformed worlds (and they were terraformed by humans) were dropped on their respective "rocks" with only the barest of necessities, and these did not include much "current-level" tech. The best indication of the current level of technology of the Alliance can best be illustrated by their massive "flyin'-skyscraper" spaceships.
Eric Simpson
fingmeow(at)yahoo.com
here on earth did Wil McCarthy get the idea that Serenity was set in a single solar system? ("Worlds of Serenity") Or that their technology was only 1800's level? It's obvious he's only a casual fan, if at all. He has never seen the massive Alliance battlecruisers overwhelm the tiny Firefly-class ship that's the star of the show. He hasn't paid attention to characters in the show actually talking about the fact that the frontier worlds didn't have the money for the Alliance technology that the core worlds propagated. His entire thesis is so far from Whedon's actual universe that it's ridiculous. Admittedly, Whedon isn't your average hard-SF writer and doesn't describe in any kind of detail about how the ships get from one system to the next, but it's still pretty clear from the first show that these are different systems, not just different planets.
C. Bradburn
cabr1729(at)yahoo.com
Columnist Wil McCarthy responds:
Here at SCI FI, they pipe stuff directly into our optic nerves to make sure we don't miss anything. Well, not really, but as a fan of the series, I've seen every episode at least once. It's true that Joss Whedon's scripts are remarkably coy on the subject of where and how the planets and moons are laid out, so Messrs. Simpson and Bradburn are right; the "one solar system" theory may not be an official, unambiguous part of the Firefly mythos. However, I'm not the first viewer to make that assumption, and I'm sure I won't be the last. Supporting evidence:
1. Planets and moons are called out by name, but stars and solar systems are not. The only star anyone refers to is "the sun."
2. Although Serenity can travel between planets in a matter of days, it's never described as having any sort of faster-than-light (FTL) drive. In fact, the same engines appear to power the ship during atmospheric and vacuum flight. The firefly's tiny shuttles can also travel between planets.
3. Deep-space encounters with other ships always occur at low speed. This implies that the planets have very similar orbital velocities, so the "delta-vee" needed to travel between them is extremely small.
4. Earth (referred to as "Earth That Was") is known from history, but is explicitly not reachable by either the Browncoat or Alliance ships. This might make sense if Earth had been destroyed somehow, but if that were true we'd expect a terraformed Mars and Venus to be among the Alliance planets. Since they aren't, the case for FTL seems even weaker. My impression is that people arrived in the Alliance system a long time ago and then lost the knowledge of how the crossing was accomplished. This is an old trope in science fiction (c.f. Andre Norton, Poul Anderson, Anne McCaffrey, etc.) and shouldn't really surprise anyone.
5) Although firefly-class ships use a nuclear reactor of some sort, they don't seem any more complicated than the early nuclear vessels of our own history, or the NERVA nuclear-thermal rocket engine developed in 1963, before humans had even reached the moon. "Barely out of the 1800s" strikes me as a fair description of this technology. Yes, the Alliance has better tech; my point is that the older/smaller ships make the crossing just as easily.
6) Many fans claim to have heard a voice-over introduction saying, "After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system and hundreds of new Earths were terraformed and colonized." I never heard that myself, but these ambiguous-yet-suggestive words do appear in the intro section of the Serenity comic book.
There's no guarantee that the show makes sense—many don't—but this scenario fits the stated facts, where the FTL/many-suns model doesn't seem to. But it's just a show, and we're here to have fun, so by all means believe whatever makes the most sense to you personally.
Best,
Wil
y grandmother sent me [Scott Edelman's latest editorial, "The Odds of Being Uneven"]. I see it as one of those "why" things. Why do some suffer while others remain in a constant state of comfort? Well, I think that's just how this world is right now, but we have made advances, the communication industry not in the least of these. I mean, the whole Internet is a buzz of heard voices and transferring of information. It's a means to learn and grow safely. We can see other parts of the world; this even helped Hurricane Katrina victims. They were seen in devastation and turmoil and aided by complete strangers. A mere 100 years ago this wouldn't have been the case. It would've taken much longer for widespread hysteria to subside and evacuation to occur because of the lacking in communication. We're here ...
And ...
We're moving forward—like pedals in hot fudge!
Creighton
kecsoccer5(at)yahoo.com
he Fall SF TV Preview is one of the most enjoyable articles to read in Science Fiction Weekly. While I am sorry certain programs are gone, I am happy that the combined successes of Lost, Desperate Housewives and Medium have encouraged networks and cable stations to air more original programming of genre television. Both last and this week will see the premieres of new and returning shows.
As for the statement made that "as for cable, the SCI FI Channel offered no new shows that stuck this past year, and that's unusual" may be true, I am happy to read that its list of intended original programming is somewhat plentiful. Many of its choices have drawn my attention and so I look forward to seeing them sometime in the future.
Julian Gift
juliang(at)tstt.net.tt
eing a non-Christian, I find the idea of teaching Intelligent Design in schools a great offense to all non-Christians. ("Pain May Be Part of the Plan", "Science and Bible Don't Contradict", "Design Wasn't So Intelligent") I have always felt that there was some kind of "great designer" out there, but that doesn't have anything to do with science. I learned that from my religious studies. I think that science should be taught in schools, and if they want to make a mention of the fact that many religions believe a certain way, that is fine, but don't try to undermine science or other folks' beliefs.
While I am on the subject, what is up with all these Christian-mythology stories coming out on TV and movies? Let's see some shows made based off of other religions mythos. I would love to see the Hindu Ramayana story done as a movie, or what about some Native American stories of their gods? This country is supposed to be all about religious freedom, but they sure don't practice what they preach.
Kim C.
[address withheld by request]
n response to Donal Buckley's comments regarding science ("Real Theories Are Testable"), I wanted to respond to a couple of his statements, without entering into a discussion or debate on whether I believe in the supremacy of creationism or evolution. A theory in science is not necessarily "proven," and that word is overused. Natural selection is not "proven," but it is demonstrated. Many, if not most, believe natural selection has occurred in the past, and will continue to occur, and quite frankly it is not something that I believe anyone who understands it really disputes. However, first causes are up for [debate], and there is no first cause, whether it be the Big Bang, or an ever expanding and contracting universe, or creation, or any other explanation, that has been "proven." Any first cause accepted by anyone requires faith.
Secondly, Don states, "science welcomes everyone by allowing ideas to be tested." While this is what is taught in schoolbooks, and is a general principle, it is not always true. I would point to the discussions concerning global warming in recent weeks, to which I've contributed, to illustrate the debate over the interpretation of data and what it means. While I agree with the basic assumption that a scientific approach requires proof, evidence and documentation, the "scientific method" continues to be interjected with the position/ideology/self-interest of those who are trying to prove whatever it is they want to prove. (I'm not saying scientists are evil, so please, no refutations on the motivations of scientists!) Each person has a priori beliefs that provide the foundation for all inquisition, whether it be in the scientific realm, or the religious realm. Ideally, those who implement the "scientific method" question even those beliefs, but in reality beliefs are posited prior to implementing the scientific method to establish those beliefs. This is not an indictment of this approach, it is an acknowledgement of the way we, as humans, think and approach reality.
Looking at history, science, religion and pretty much anything else, it has always been the case. Even Darwin acknowledged that his original established theory was based on inductive reasoning (many of his original thoughts have been rejected in the last hundred years, replaced by other thoughts based on, yes, interpretation of data). But the point is that Darwin started with a position, and sought evidence to demonstrate that position. You might point out that I'm constructing an argument for adherence to the scientific method in its purest form, but in reality I'm simply restating what I said earlier—that ideas are formed first, and then scientific method is utilized to try and "prove" those ideas.
I would further point to mathematics, which some would argue is science in its purest form. There are "theorems" (another form of the word theory) that are "proven." What are these theorems based on? Hypotheses. What are these? They are statements or principles that cannot be proven but have to be accepted in order to establish a basis for mathematics—such as two parallel lines never intersect, though they may stretch out to infinity. Thus, we have an entire field, mathematics, that is based upon several hypotheses that are not and cannot be "proven," but are nevertheless accepted as true—at least they are true in our space-time. Perhaps there is another dimension or reality of our own dimension where these hypotheses are not true! Thus, we have science fiction.
Whether or not "creationism" should be taught in schools is not my point, and quite frankly I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not afraid of knowledge being taught to students, and it seems to me to be an element of fear that presenting several ideas of first causes is a bad thing.
Stephen Madden
stephen.madden(at)siemens.com
r. Ferguson has serious issues if he calls Star Wars "sci-fi." ["Don't Call Surface Sci-Fi"] His description of Surface, "This is almost like something that could be real" is, in fact, the definition of science fiction, and not science-fantasy or -opera as is Star Wars. Sci-fi works on the notions of actual scientific theory and hypotheses. Jules Verne wrote about submarines (20,000 Leagues) and going to the moon before they were feasible because the scientific theory behind such accomplishments were rooted in the laws of physics. Much of what H.G. Wells wrote about is also coming to bear. Island of Dr. Moreau was about the fusion of different species, and through genetics we are today swapping genes between species to make a better grain, a better rice, a frost-proof tomato and so on. Hell, even Star Trek had cell phones in the 1960s show, 30 years before they became small enough to look like the communicators Kirk used. And our phones transmit to space no less far than the Enterprise would orbit.
So Mr. Ferguson, in my humble opinion, does not know what he's talking about. Another front man who would seem cooler if he didn't speak. I guess the chicks dig him.
Edward Lazellari
edward_lazellari(at)sandp.com
irst contact" has always been the great dream of science fiction, and all of us have read books and seen TV and movies and even listened to such stories on the radio.
Oh, to meet beings from other worlds! To communicate with them, to understand and appreciate their perspective on life in the universe. This is the great obsession spurned on by our combined curiosity and imagination.
Then along comes reality. Iraq is looked upon as a Third World nation long under tyranny and seemingly brainwashed by religious zealots. If only we could harness our "first contact" insights, we might find that the Iraqis see us as alien as we see them.
Are there aliens among us? Another sci-fi staple. Truth be told, if you're poor and African-American, you live in a very different, and very fragile America than the rest of us. The very idea that Americans could be seen by fellow citizens as "refugees" should be "alien" to all of us.
Instead of watching a Star Trek rerun of alien contact or yet another remake or ripoff about "first contact," we might open our eyes a bit to the reality of this new millennium.
No, space aliens have not landed, but too many people in America and abroad remain alien to too many of us.
Kevin Ahearn
Dorothydspr(at)aol.com
ood science fiction, in my opinion, has always been about humanity, and different aspects of humanity. It should always reflect us and the fact that we are not all the same.
I was a kid in the '60s who fell in love with Star Trek because of Lt. Uhura. Here was someone like me flying in space. If we can't all get along in a fictional universe, how can we get along in the real one? There is a movement in the country to get rid of political correctness. I think the real motivation behind this is that some people would like to be prejudiced without the guilt.
Anyway, thanks for your question and thanks for shows that are about "humanity," like Firefly and Battlestar Galactica.
Don Dees
[address withheld]
Back to the top.
