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.
or Wil McCarthy ("Worlds of Serenity"): You haven't watched Serenity very closely.
1. The ship puffs out green smoke or fog or vapor just before going FTL.
2. The "new solar system" comment is made at the beginning of several episodes. Calling it a "new solar system" and talking about hundreds of worlds shows the lack of understanding of astronomy. They undoubtedly meant another cluster of stars elsewhere in our galaxy.
3. I believe the location of "Earth That Was" is what is forgotten.
4. Deep-space encounters in most TV sci-fi and sci-fi movies appear to occur at relatively low velocities. Firefly just does what other shows do.
5. Your arguments against FTL are what don't fit. If there were a terraformed Mars and/or Venus, then FTL would be a weaker idea. There are not hundreds of planets in our solar system. FTL travel was forgotten in stories by the authors you've mentioned, but it was usually lost after some kind of a societal upheaval, not because they simply forgot how.
6. Your closing line was a trifle condescending to those whose opinions you disagreed with. "... by all means believe whatever makes the most sense to you personally." Give me a break. Your "many fans claim" comment was a bit beneath civility, as well.
Chuck Morelock
res08510(at)verizon.net
n addition to the evidence Mr. McCarthy ("Worlds of Serenity") provided in reply to this letter, he may wish to add this interview with Joss Whedon from December of last year: here
Q: Does Serenity go faster than light?
Joss: I don't think so.
Q: Are the planets really close together?
Joss: They're really close together. You've never seen a planet cluster like this one. It's a little planet village. If you start asking me science questions I'm going to cry.
While there may not have been any scientific basis behind the choice to set Firefly/Serenity in a single system, I think it's pretty clear that Joss imagined it that way. It's also fairly clear that giving a consistent scientific description of his universe was not particularly high on his priority list when he conceived the series. And given the 15 episodes of pure storytelling brilliance he gave us, can anyone honestly say they care?
Stuart Duncan
grounded(at)tiscali.co.uk
egarding the question of whether the worlds of Serenity are in a single solar system or not, I have to support Wil McCarthy's theory. I, too, thought they were in several solar systems, even after watching the DVD set four or five times ... until I read the Serenity comics, where it is explicitly stated that they are in one solar system. I thought that odd, and perhaps a gaffe, until I started watching the replays on the SCI FI Channel. The voice-over introduction that McCarthy refers to is at the beginning of the episodes—Shepherd Book clearly stating what McCarthy quotes: "After the Earth was used up, we found a new solar system, and hundreds of new Earths were terraformed and colonized."
If two sources from Whedon says it is a single solar system, then it is a single solar system, and I was just not a particularly attentive viewer.
Fred Perry
tarqas(at)bellsouth.net
he recent letter from Don Dees ("Political Correctness Is Correct"), defending political correctness, was a stark illustration of how different the perceptions can be. Despite
the U.S. and U.K. sharing the same language and base culture, we often see things in a different light. Like Don, I was a kid in the '60s, and loved watching Star Trek. Uhura was also one of my favorite characters. Not because she was "like me," as he put it, but rather because she was not.
In the U.K. of the day, the black population were either refugees or from what was called the Windrush Generation: folk from all over the West Indies, former British colonies, who were invited to come and live in the U.K. Uhura was not like them, either, and that made her all the more intriguing. The same thing applied to Kirk, Chekov and Spock. All, to one degree or another, were exotic when compared to my everyday life. At that time, I'd never met an American or a Russian, so they were almost as alien to me as a Vulcan. The fact that there were no white English females aboard the Enterprise didn't bother me one iota. I reveled in seeing the thrilling, otherworldly exploits of people so different.
Don's theory that there is a movement in the U.S. to get rid of political correctness, based on some people's desire to be prejudiced without the guilt, made me cringe. Perhaps it's an American thing? Here in the U.K., with the exception of a tiny minority or idiots, most black and white folks get on just fine. There have been divisory attempts to reclassify people as Jamaican-British, or some other designation based on family background. But guess what? They come from the politically correct fanaticism of the Blair regime. Most real people, of all races and backgrounds, just laugh at such nonsense, and regard the influence of political correctness as a pain in the posterior! As for what's going on in the U.S., Don is better placed than I to make a judgment. But if I'm understanding the words of people such as Martin Luther King, Gil Scott-Heron and Lt. Uhura, it isn't about creating division, it's about coming together. United we stand, divided we fall.
Lulli Doppler
lulli(at)minx.co.uk
he author of the letter "Other Gods Should Be TV Fodder" clearly does not understand the concept of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This seems to have been twisted to mean "All religions should get equal use and treatment in the media." This seems like a violation of the second part of the First Amendment, freedom of speech. People have the right to make a movie or a TV show or whatever about whatever topic, or religion, they desire. The large number of "Christian-mythology stories" is probably due to the fact that the United States is predominantly Christian. That "this country is supposed to be all about religious freedom" has nothing to do with it. You are still free to practice, or not practice, any religion of your choice, no matter who makes films about Christianity.
Amy Hill
jainasolo1138(at)yahoo.com
n the letter headed "Other Gods Should Be TV Fodder," Kim C. bemoaned the fact that non-Christian-themed TV shows and movies are seldom if ever seen. A good and valid point. Unfortunately, the letter closed with a non sequitur: "This country is supposed to be all about religious freedom, but they sure don't practice what they preach."
I trust this is a non-sequitur. If it is not, the only conclusion one can draw is that the letter advocates a mandatory allocation of screen time to every religious mythos, something I feel no SCIFI.com reader would ever endorse.
In actuality, religious freedom has nothing to do with the issue. Like everything else in the entertainment industry, it's all about the money. The various flavors of Christianity compose the majority religion in the United States, and therefore entertainment will be made that draws the attention and financial support of that majority. If Kim wants entertainment flavored with Hindu religiosity, then he or she will have to settle for Delhi takeout.
Bob Lauderdale
chidiock(at)postoffice.worldnet.att.net
hile Mr. Madden ("Knowledge Mustn't Be Feared") is long-winded enough to debate any college professor I know, he is sadly mistaken on many parts, or at the very least very slanted in how he states the basics of scientific research. Let me be less long-winded and simply correct him as quickly as possible.
"A theory in science is not necessarily 'proven,' but it is demonstrated." A mathematical proof is quite the example of a demonstration. I disagree entirely with his concept that natural selection "is not something that ... Anyone who understands it really disputes." Or that the "first cause" is the only debate. If that were true, evolution wouldn't be at the front of the attack on education. He also does not mention the real basis for a theory, that it is through observation of an experiment or nature that we come the conclusions that such hypotheses are facts.
I won't think about debating him on the second paragraph, about scientists having egos and often jumping to conclusions not based in fact. I've seen it myself. It's part of having emotions. Ah, to be Vulcan ...
"... that ideas are formed first, and then scientific method is utilized to try and 'prove' those ideas." In order for these "ideas," as he puts it, to come forth, there must be an established question trying to be answered. And the question comes from observation. And observation comes from ... seeing the pattern? Modern science is founded on classical science and engineering. We must be able to observe something to be "odd" in order to get an idea of what question to ask, let alone what the answer might be or what experiment needs to be done to find the answer.
"Hypotheses ... are statements or principles that cannot be proven but have to be accepted in order to establish a basis for mathematics. ..." Last I saw, a hypothesis was an educated guess based on previously known information. If we take his statement to be true, all mathematics started with 1+1=2 and continued outward from there. So then where is the problem?
He seems to have a problem distinguishing between hypotheses and theories, between observation and ideas, and between "being on the fence" and "taking a stand" on an issue. Good thing this was in a sci-fi newsletter and not Nature or Science. Not that I like either of those that much either, lately. Too much politics.
Monte Y. Pescador
pescador.science(at)comcast.net
ith respect to Bernadette Wilson ("Goblet Shouldn't Be Filmed PG-13"), I applaud what both Chris Mihatsch ("Ratings Can't Parent") and Ian Banks ("All Sci-Fi Isn't for All Ages") said in their prospective letters. I was shocked that someone who claimed to read the Potter books with her children would be shocked that Goblet of Fire got a PG-13 rating. I am an adult and read all the books to date, and thought to myself that the Potter books were no longer really for children, and branching more into the Young Adult and even adult with contents and all. The only things not used in the books have been language and sex. But still more for teenagers and adults than young children.
But I applaud that Chris Mihatsch is right and that Ms. Wilson should see the film first, by herself, before determining if the film is appropriate for her children. I am shocked more and more seeing kids in films rated R these days, especially as my husband and I would have to view a film first before letting our son see it if we felt there might be something objectionable or scary. Use those ratings for what they are, to deem when your child should see the film, if at all.
To let all know, our son is now 27 and watches anime and many genre films. He also reads, as I have encouraged him to read, from classics to books I felt he could handle at the age he was at the time, plus what they read in school. His faves? From Jules Verne to Hitchhiker's Guide (which he finally got into this year, due to the new film—I even got him the book for his birthday).
Pamela K. Kinney
JediMistressDrgn(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
