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.
o one mentioned it in this column at the time, but last spring, near the season finale of Lost, there was a Wire blurb where [Damon] Lindelof, its producer, said that Arszt, [WARNING: SPOILER FOLLOWS] the science teacher, was a continuing character in the second season—a week or two before they blew Arszt up. From that I surmised that Lindelof liked to throw out red herrings.
So, red flags went up for me in this week's TV Guide. Lindelof refused to discuss the possibility of time travel as part of what's going on on the island. But his next statement was a cryptic comment that although we assume it's 2004 because that's when the series started, he's gone to great lengths to not pinpoint the date, e.g., by never referring to elections,
etc.
At the benign level, keeping references to the present out of it lets the series play better in syndication in 2011, and our time is pulling away from theirs. Of course, I could also read into it that all the care in making it timeless could have purpose, because he put so much effort into it.
Then I had flashes of early episodes where Boone's sister had a cell phone that looked pretty current, and Hurley had his CD player whose batteries eventually run out. And, of course, Sayid was in Gulf War I. Maybe the island is in some sort of time nexus as sometimes posited for the Bermuda Triangle, but the passengers of Flight 85 are relatively contemporary to 2004. Yes, it could be the 1990s, and that could somehow be significant to the long-run story—or it's another red herring, and Lindelof is just messing with us again.
Barbara Goldstein
psifidoll(at)comcast.net
fter reading Kevin Ahearn's letter "Sci-Fi Must Change With the Times," it seems, at least to me, that he is unclear as to where sci-fi must change? It mainly has to do with his "sci-fi novels are dead." I have gone over most of what is out there in the bookstores, and some I like, some I would not want read even if you paid me. Out of all of that, there are two writers that I love. Kevin J. Anderson and David Weber. Anderson's Saga of the Seven Suns is the best space opera I have read to some time. Weber's Honor Harrington books are great sci-fi adventures.
These books must be bringing in the numbers for Aspect (Saga of the Seven Suns) and Baen (Honor Harrington), most likely not the 300 million books that Harry Potter sold, but enough for them to keep wasting time with them, and for bookstores to keep getting them for us to buy. And that goes for all sci-fi novels out at this time.
Yes, what I have said is a subjective opinion, but it is hardly irrelevant. There seem to be enough readers of sci-fi, who like what is out there, to keep book publishers bringing out the novels, and bookstores for stocking them.
In the end only one question comes to mind: What does Kevin Ahearn want to see come out?
Timothy Morgan
zanlong(at)cox.net
evin Ahearn complained that sci-fi publishers have not changed with the times ("Sci-Fi Must Change With the Times,"). Perhaps it is he who has not changed. He is still reading books from the same old publishers on the same old paper. He should visit some of the fantastic stuff that is being done in e-publishing. Sci-fi is alive and thriving in the e-book business. It is second in popularity only to romance fiction. And e-publishers don't mind if you write outside the box.
Stephen LaFevers
stevelafevers(at)centurytel.net
eading the comments from Mark Allen and the rebuttal by Mike Szymanski ("Wallace & Gromit Belongs British"), I was reminded that the only place British movies and TV exports need adjusting so that the natives can understand is the United States. Usually, the culprits are people simply too lazy to bother with listening properly. The result being that any slight variation of pronunciation from what they're used to is not understood. It must be laziness, because English-speaking people outside of the U.S. do not have much if any difficulty understanding any regional American accent. Or, for that matter, any Antipodean, U.K. or otherwise accented version of the mother tongue. Adjusting American movies and TV for other English-speaking countries never happens. Tony Soprano with a broad Yorkshire accent, or an Australian voice, would be laughed off the screen.
Nick Park and others who have Americanized their works detract from and dilute the originals, thus depriving those Americans who do take joy in original products from experiencing work as the author intended. This was recently brought home to me, literally, when I was visited by some American friends. They were seeking out British copies of the Harry Potter books, because they'd heard, correctly, that the text was different. The British books, for those who don't know, contain colloquialisms unique to British culture. Similarly, the Harry Potter audio books are read, in U.S. versions, by Jim Dale, who flattens out the characters' speech as much as possible. The U.K. versions of the audio books are read by Stephen Fry, who makes a point of including a wide variety of British regional accents, thus enhancing the listening experience.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil(at)freeuk.com
hate to sound old-fashioned, but when I was growing up, art, literature and even cinema were supposed to teach young people something as well as entertain them. What's the matter with a few Britishisms in Wallace & Gromit? ("Wallace & Gromit Belongs British") Young people easily learn foreign words, often on one hearing in context, and dictionaries (on and offline, aka books) are plentiful. Learning a few special British terms like lorry, lift, moggie, etc., will
increase one's enjoyment of Britcoms, British mysteries, novels, movies, etc., all the more. But, I suppose having a large reading vocabulary is elistist and unpatriotic, and just because most of the rest of the Anglophone community learns British English is no reason for Americans to be able to understand it.
By the way, the patronizing and calculating arrogance of Scholastic continues to irritate me whenever I see the Harry Potter series. In England, the first book was called Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, which has great historical meaning and resonance, as Nicholas Flamel was a real alchemist, and alchemists did try to prolong their lives (as well as make gold and purify their souls) with the legendary Philosopher's Stone, usually described as a powdery red solid, IIRC, well-nigh impossible even for adepts to synthesize.
However, Scholastic apparently thought that references to real history and early chemistry were too intellectual for American children and that maybe substituting Sorcerer for Philosopher would make them think of D&D. The possibility that the original title might pique someone's interest in alchemy, and through it to the history of chemistry, and
finally chemistry itself or other contemporary science probably never occurred to them, even if they cared. Calling themselves "Scholastic" is commercial cynicism at its worst. No wonder the U.S. students rank 22nd out of 40 industrialized countries and 19 out of 21 by another measure.
John Chalmers
jhchalmers(at)ucsd.edu
ust what language is Mike Szymanski using? ("Wallace & Gromit Belongs British") I take it he is trying to put on an English accent in text. Well, it didn't work. His reply to Mark Allen's letter reads as if he barely understands what he has written. Using different styles like this is a very difficult process and is best left to the professionals. This reply, apart from being vaguely embarrassing to read, is also jingoistic, is full of strange words (flickers) and weird phrases (Blimey, bloke). I take it he means "flicks," which no one in England has used for decades as we see a film or go to the movies instead. Bloke is used more as a description than appellation, but not by many.
Oddly enough, lots of people in England, especially those under 30, use lorry loads of American words and phrases picked up from cinema and TV. The repost was valid, but its impact was diminished by its awkwardness.
I recently saw a documentary about American culture first coming to Britain in the '30s, and yes, those listening to their first American accent thought it was a foreign language. You just need to be a bit inclusive to get the meaning—sometimes subtle. Now I am in my 50s, and even the English pop-culture references need explaining to me, but if I want to get involved, I take the time to look it up somewhere.
We should all chill when it comes to other peoples' cultures. I, for one, wouldn't swap American neologisms for anything. It livens up the language—stops it stagnating. If I need to watch something twice to get the gist, I'll watch it again.
Richard Ashton
rb.ashton(at)ntlworld.com
just had to smile at reviewer Mike Szymanski's response to the letter headlined "Wallace & Gromit Belongs British."
Without wanting to indulge in tiresome and simple-minded America-bashing, perhaps it's time for Hollywood to get a grip on the idea that your voices, cultural references and social norms aren't necessarily "mainstream" to 95 percent of the human race.
But, somehow, we've coped with you Americans and your bizarre, wonderful and often downright confusing culture over the last couple of centuries and even been enriched by the experience.
A few months back I sat in a theatre with my niece and nephew, aged 8 and 10, in a sold-out screening of Howl's Moving Castle and didn't notice too much trauma among the thousand-plus New Zealanders watching a Japanese adaptation of a British fantasy novel, with a soundtrack dubbed by mostly American actors with wobbly British accents!
Miyazaki's best work—My Neighbor Totoro, Spirited Away, Nausicaä—is unapologetically steeped in Japanese culture, myth and social values. (And I have to congratulate Disney for making his work available in good quality English-language versions without dumbing down or blanding out for the Western market.) While that doesn't "translate easily for kids" in the West, they do respond to his deeply felt humanism. ... Assuming they're not going to automatically turn their noses up at foreign films like so many of their elders and betters.
I think Mr. Szymanski may find children aren't quite as quick to give up on new and challenging windows on the world as he might think.
Craig Ranapia
[address withheld]
fondly remember back in the 6th grade reading this hardbound [John Carter of Mars] by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I was lost in wide-eyed wonder at the mighty Tars Tarkas and the lone human by the name of John Carter.
Imagine my surprise when I would watch the Saturday-afternoon matinees on television and see these Johnny Weismuller Tarzan movies based off the same author. Needless to say, I was hooked. I read just about everything I could get my hands on involving Burroughs. His books are like glimpses into the past.
I am at once hopeful and somewhat guarded as to what any big-screen version of these books would entail. If it is changed to the standards of today I think the story would lose much of its flavor and reason for liking the world and characters created.
In a politically correct world, John Carter falls woefully short. He is robust, dashing and all male with manners. In a politically correct world, John Carter is perfect to espouse values and morals that have long since been lost.
Mark Bergman
Kelorfmdb(at)yahoo.com
ith the popularity of Battlestar Galactica, Threshold, Lost, Surface and other continuing-storyline science fiction, I have to ask the question, would now be the right time to introduce Honor Harrington to mass audiences via television or the big screen?
Ahhh, I know at least one or two people just asked themselves, "Who the heck is Honor Harrington?"
Admiral Lady Dame Honor Stephanie Harrington, Steadholder Harrington, Countess Harrington, is the creation of David Weber and one of the greatest characters created for a space opera since Kimball Kinnison.
Introduced in the novel On Basilisk Station and continued in a series of novels which are still being written (a new one is due in November), Honor is a subject of the Kingdom of Manticore and an officer in Her Majesty's Navy, and is a feudal lord of the planet Grayson and an officer in that star system's fleet. It would be too complicated to explain it all in this letter, and it would be best to run out to your local bookstore (online or offline) and start reading the books.
These are some of the most exciting books written in years, but remember they are space opera. Yes, they are science fiction, but not entirely science fiction. This is a series which has drawn in both men and women and continues to grow year by year.
Given the trend towards space opera on television, this would be an ideal time to introduce Lady Harrington to mass media. The technology to produce such a series is already out there, and, given the right venue, would likely draw in numbers to compare to the revived Battlestar Galactica.
Of course, some enterprising soul has probably already pitched this idea, but just in case ...
Keith M. Kitchen
boyoklaatu1()ataol.com
'm sorry, but the new Night Stalker ain't going to make it. The main problem is that despite the original show's really bad special effects, it had really, really good writing and acting. It was also a really funny show and very entertaining. Darren McGavin was a show stealer.
The new show has Kolchak with partners and has no humor. If Kolchak was alone and not paired up with the chick and the kid then it could have a chance of success. We would be focused on one man's obsession to find the truth, just like the original was. I know there are always those who feel the shows need to be updated for a modern audience. I think "updated" usually means "moronized." The old show was slick, funny, well acted, surprising and always entertaining.
What needs updating?
Steven Norquist
nordattack(at)nethere.com
Back to the top.
