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.
egarding A.L. Sirois' review of the Zimmer/Howard soundtrack of Batman Begins, I agree very much with most of what was said. I should like to point, however, that one other composer has done great work musically scoring Batman, and that is Shirley Walker. Granted, her work for Batman has been limited to most of the animated shows and some of the films (Mask of the Phantasm, at least), but when I heard she was not doing the music for Batman Begins, I was disappointed.
Don't get me wrong, I was certain before the film's release that whatever music Zimmer and
Howard would create would be good. (I loved Howard's work on the film Unbreakable.) I also realize that, given the emphasis on realism in the film, Ms. Walker's stirring themes, with their choral elements and their almost gothic spiritual tones, might have been too different a style for the movie. But it would still have been beautiful to hear her famous Batman theme accompanying the story, since it really is so good, capturing the sheer gothic beauty and romance of the Batman mythos. I'd like to have heard her music during the debut of Batman on the docks, and especially during the interrogation of Flass and the final scene where he's given the Joker card, my two most favorite scenes in the film.
Maybe for the sequel...?
Adam Goss
saganth(at)yahoo.com
s I read this article ("Developers' Races Don't Matter"), one thing came to my mind: What in the world was wrong with presenting the facts as Science Fiction Weekly did? When you present statistics, as SFW did, they are presenting information that some of their readers would be interested in. SFW did not aim to start an "affirmative action" campaign, although some would wish they did (interesting that [Brad R. Torgersen] would bring that up). Maybe you should look inwardly at some sort of guilt or something that is inspiring such a defensive reaction.
Although I hesitate to get into this argument, it is extremely important as a SF fan and as a video-game fan that I at least have an idea about who is making the movies or games that I play. When I think of the racial insensitivity—yes, despite what you may think, this still persists, whether you decide to acknowledge race or not—of video games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas or in the lack of strong black characters on the SCI FI Channel, I can't help but see race. So to put all of the negative images into perspective, it is helpful for me to know who is putting those images out there, and I thank SFW for letting me get a better understanding of who is producing content I might consume.
So to paraphrase you, if we stop talking about race, the fact that I am black will go away and I will only be seen for the content of my character? Oh, to be naïve once again! You and I may believe that to the fullest of our consciousness, but until everyone does, we need information and statistics that explain where we are and how much further we need to go. You sugarcoat what you are saying by invoking the name of Dr. King and Rosa Parks, but they would even scoff at so naïve a sentiment. While I agree that the world would be a better place if everyone considered people based on content of character versus skin color, it's only been 40 years since there were two worlds within America (separate but "equal"), and there are still a lot of people out there (they and their children) who will never look at content of character before race. For me, the realm of science fiction, video games, etc., are a place for me to escape from this world; please don't intrude on them with an important conversation better left for another venue (i.e., the real world).
Phillip Harris
[address withheld by request]
hanks for giving my favorite Web site and daily crossword-level distraction a plug at [Science Fiction Weekly]. It's a fun site that stretches the brain and is peopled with some of the nicest folks on the net.
One minor comment, though. You state in the article that the site has 15,000 reviews, of which I have about 6,000. Actually, it's 150,000. I don't want to rob my levity and brevity brethren of 135,000 reviews.
Thanks again and definitely write up some reviews of your own. All are welcome.
Noncentz
noncentz(at)earthlink.net
Assistant editor Brian Murphy responds:
Oops! Great catch! An egregious typo on our part. Please pass along our personal apologies to the 135,000 reviewers we snubbed.
Thanks for keeping us honest!
Best,
Brian
have been reading many interesting letters on homosexuality in the sci-fi universe on Science Fiction Weekly. The AOL newsletter on George Takei opening up about his own homosexuality is one of the most uplifting letters I have read on the Internet. Mr. Takei is not just honoring the equality of homosexuals, but also the legacy of Star Trek, which has expressed in variety the equality and dignity of all diversity. Thank you, George, for your willingness to share with us one of this decade's most insightful and beautiful testaments to the human condition.
Michael Anthony Basil
mike.basil(at)sympatico.ca
eorge Takei's recent revelation that he is gay, while it may have surprised many Star Trek fans and disgusted others, further expanded and reinforced Gene Roddenberry's vision of humanity's future in the universe.
"The world has changed from when I was a young teen feeling ashamed for being gay," said Takei, who defined his nation's view of homosexuality as "against basic decency and what American values stand for."
In the 1960s there was much more to it than that—being gay was not simply a sexual or social issue, but one of "national security."
Ironically, Takei, a Japanese-American, had lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to 8. Following the "dastardly attack" on Pearl Harbor in 1941, wartime paranoia led to confining all West Coast Japanese-Americans.
In the Cold War against the Soviet Union, paranoia took a different turn when, in 1960, William H. Martin and Bernon F. Mitchell, two cryptographers with the National Security Agency (NSA), defected to Russia, doing "irreparable damage to national security" and "causing [NSA] to completely overhaul its organization and institute a rigid internal security force."
Martin and Mitchell were homosexuals and, like the Japanese-Americans before them, suddenly a whole group of American citizens was branded as "untrustworthy."
During the mid-'60s, I was an Air Force intelligence analyst in Europe with a Top Secret Codeword security clearance, assigned to analyzing Soviet air defense. In my three-year tour, two fellow airmen were reported as "having feminine characteristics." Both simply disappeared—shipped back to the states immediately and reassigned.
One night, two of my unit's most flaming heterosexuals got stinking drunk and passed out. The next morning they were discovered in the same bed. Instantly stripped of their Top Secret clearances, they were confined to base as a vigorous investigation ensued to confirm the
sexuality of the two suspects.
"How does it feel now that two 250 million Americans no longer trust you?" became the question of the month. Only after sworn testimony by their commanding officers were the pair reinstated.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union, did the U.S. military finally find a cure for its willful and wasteful homophobia? Such is fantasy, sci-fi fans!
On April 19, 1989, the battleship Iowa was engaged in a special exercise in the Caribbean when a massive explosion from inside one of its main battery turrets killed more than a dozen sailors. The initial Navy probe called the disaster "sabotage" as the result of a "love spat" between two homosexual sailors who had been killed in the blast. The victims' parents were outraged and threatened to sue the Navy to clear the names of their fallen sons. The Navy dug deeper to find out that lack of ordered training, disregard for mandatory maintenance and low
crew morale brought on by the ship's captain all contributed to the accident.
The "homosexual" sailors were cleared, but their sexual preferences were never proven—the stigma remained.
In the classic Star Trek, Roddenberry went where no TV show had gone before by staffing his military-like, though not militaristic, Starfleet with an effortless mix of races and cultures. But had the "Big Bird of the Galaxy" gone further than even the most diehard Trekker could have imagined?
Africans, Asians and Latins are relatively easy to show on television. Skin color does much of the showing. White Europeans can be distinguished by their accents: "Soviet wessels." But if the humanity of future had defeated all the prejudices of their ancestors, wouldn't it be "logical" for at least one of the crew to be homosexual? But how does one show homosexuality without cruel cliches? Could it be that in the centuries to come, homosexuals could be imagined and portrayed as "regular people" just like us?
I am glad that George Takei stood up to be himself. Whether or not Hikaru Sulu is gay will be debated for all eternity. Or maybe not, because his sexuality really doesn't define the content of his character, does it?
I trust Trekkers to get that straight.
Kevin Ahearn
dorothydspr(at)aol.com
agree with Mike's sentiments ("Lost Should Copy The Prisoner") that if you have a story to tell, you should tell it, but he seems to have missed the point.
[Warning: Spoilers ahead.] First off, the latest episode of Lost was not a filler episode. The way the show is structured, we learn more about why the castaways are the way they are by flashing back into their pasts. Learning that Jin was not always an enforcer but at one time had some sense of proper behavior fuels our understanding of why he acts the way he does now, why Sun loved him before he became the way he was prior to the crash and why she is so concerned with losing the wedding ring. It is a symbol of the love they once shared that they have re-embraced—the hope that they will be together again while at the same time she faces the very real possibility (finding the bottle) that he is even more lost at sea. The backstory lets us know another reason why Jin was so insistent on being on the raft to bring salvation back to Sun, as well as why he risks it all to go to help Michael, or at least bring him back. The whole storyline that surrounds Jin and Sun is about finding oneself in loss and persisting in hope beyond hope—overtones less obvious in their story, but just as important as the same sentiments in Locke's history. Also, Mr. Eko doesn't actually say that the parade of legs is the mysterious Others, although it is implied.
What I found most interesting is not that "one of the Others carries a teddy bear on a leash?!" It is the very obvious—to me—reference to Peter Pan and the Lost Boys. That scene alone made the whole rest of the episode worth it.
Paul Rose Jr.
Rosejr(at)sheriffleefl.org
n all of the words exchanged concerning the "dumbing down" and Americanization (replacing British terms with American ones, changing plot points), many people seem to have forgotten that Scholastic may have had another reason to alter the Harry Potter books: controversy.
When Harry Potter first hit this side of the ocean, conservative religious groups and parents' watchdog groups were up in arms concerning possible occult elements. Remember, these books were accused of teaching our kids witchcraft. In regards to "the Sorcerer's Stone"(which I have not read, so this does not come from an informed opinion) being altered and "going the D&D route," this decision may have been made to lessen any possible objection.
For the record, I have not ready any of the Harry Potter books, not because of any objections to the subject matter (I don't care if they're occult), but because I am a sci-fi fan and not a fantasy fan. If I did, I probably would get the original British versions. As for changing the language, I do object to this. This is Anglican English, not Sanskrit or Phoenician. It's not that hard.
Jason Moon
jpmoon(at)access4less.net
n "Americans Are Being Dumbed Down" Ed Lawrence says, "Unless Americans speak out against this dumbing-down process, American audiences will soon only have access to bland, vanilla movies and books without any regionalisms, colloquialisms or nationalistic flavoring."
I, for one, couldn't agree more. Today's educators, thanks to things like the "No Child Left Behind" Act, are now more concerned with getting children out the door than in letting them actually learn anything. I don't blame them, however, as this is merely the end result of a decades-long trend in society over education. You may think I'm joking, but check your MS Word program. Type a page or so. Use the tool for spelling and grammar. You'll probably see a box that pops up at the first grammatical or spelling misuse—according to MS. Click on Options and check the "Readability" option. I did this because I wanted to find out what the numbers were on something I'm writing. You check your numbers and then look at Help. Search for Readability and it will tell you that you have to write for 7th and 8th graders. It will also give you a number that will tell you what your readability by those 7th and 8th graders is. Now, it may just be me, but I don't want anyone telling me that I have to write at a 7th and 8th grade level. It means I have to dumb down what I'm writing, and I refuse to do that. It means that I have to write at a level I left behind many years ago. When I was in 7th grade and up, I was always devouring books, SF especially, because it was the only way for me to learn new words. This should be something every person should strive for, but I realize they won't. I know this letter is a bit of a ramble, but it does express what I feel.
David Crowley
LatCrow(at)aol.com
've been quite amused by the debate over whether English should be Americanized for American audiences. It strikes me, at times, that certain closeted Americans have a very strange view of the British, perhaps as a result of the fact that the last unadulterated British films were released in the 1950s. Fairly recently, I watched an episode of the American TV series The Agency which was supposedly set in London and which had schoolboys running around in short trousers and every second Londoner wearing a flat cap. As someone who lives and works in London, I found the place completely unrecognizable. Is this really how you see us? Mike Szymanski's bizarre and deeply patronizing response to Mark Allen's letter ("Wallace & Gromit Belongs British"), steeped as it was in words and phrases that haven't been used in 50 years, would seem to imply that it is.
Conversely, American output never seems to be modified for reception outside the USA. In episodes of Buffy, Spike has been known to call other people "wankers," presumably not realizing what a harsh and unpleasant vulgarity it is in Britain. Even the spelling no longer gets amended; in Richard Laymon's novel The Stake, his hero is an author who comments that all his British editor does is insert the letter "U" into words like "colour," yet the British version I read was marked by an ironic absence of such changes. If we, in Britain, can learn to accept American versions of American books and films, and our children can easily grasp that some words are spelt differently in American works, surely you can do the same? As John Chalmers commented, the American youth would surely have no difficulty accepting that people from foreign countries are slightly different to themselves. I imagine the only people who have difficulty with this concept are those in the entertainment industry.
Duncan Lawrence
[address withheld by request]
ost of the people responding ("The Printed Word Is Still Superior") to my response ("Paper Books Are So Last Century") to Kevin ("Sci-Fi Must Change With the Times,") when he lamented that there were few good sci-fi books around these days, missed the point. I was not saying that e-books are better than paper books. I was saying that good science fiction was being made available via e-books and that if he cannot find anything worth reading in the traditional format, he might try going to www.fictionwise.com and check out the science-fiction e-books that are available. They are legion, and many are terrific.
Stephen LaFevers
stevelafevers(at)centurytel.net
ust what is the future of print SF? That future is not too bright, if we're looking to trees as the continued solution.
In the 1960s and '70s, I could buy brand-new paperbacks for less than a dollar. I hit the "Golden Age of Science Fiction" (a.k.a., age 13) in 1969, and it was within my allowance and lawn-mowing savings to buy SF paperbacks off the drugstore rack.
Nowadays, a paperback book costs around $8. Even with today's hyperinflated dollar, that's a lot of moolah for a little kid. And in terms of hours of entertainment, a computer game is cheaper than a paperback book. It's a testimony to the resilience of print SF that it can exist at all under these marketing conditions.
Over the years it's also become harder to read some of the new books (you know who you are), because the font is smaller, the character spacing is smaller, and the margins are smaller. As I've gotten older and my eyesight has become poorer, it has become a chore to read these "compressed format" books, even at the highest magnification of reading glasses available. I suspect that anyone with less-than-perfect eyesight has noticed this trend.
Behind all this is the fact that book manufacturing and distribution has become prohibitively expensive, and publishers are not only raising prices, they're conserving on paper as much as possible with difficult-to-read format compression that causes readers like me to find reading even "fun" books not much fun at all.
Why is all this happening in an age when computer technology was supposed to reduce the cost of publication? I suppose it has to do with factors that are outside the control of the computer revolution—like the cost of growing enough trees, or the cost of supporting giant publication and distribution consortiums which are inefficient at everything except running the competition out of business.
Given these factors, I'm all in favor of the e-book concept. I can't afford $300 for a Rocketbook reader, however, and I'm not about to squint at a Palmtop's postage-stamp-sized screen. But I am waiting for the day when the computer-powers-that-be release a decent-sized computer tablet at an affordable price. Then I will read e-books and the era of the paper page will come to an end, at least for me.
The technology has a way to go yet, but I sense that it's not so much a matter of engineering as ergonomics. The computer manufacturers have got to sit down with users and ask, "What would it take for you to give up the printed page?" I suspect there is a reasonable answer to that question.
Joe Schembrie
joeschem(at)hotmail.com
was very saddened that Serenity flopped in the box office. It got great reviews from fans and newcomers alike. Personally, I loved the movie and I cannot wait 'til it comes out so I can watch it again. With the way the movie went in the box office, I think it would have been a better move on Whedon's part to make a TV movie or miniseries. Hopefully this will convince [director Joss] Whedon to bring Firefly back to TV, where it belongs. Firefly probably has the most devoted fans in all of sci-fi, myself being one. Firefly belongs on TV, pure and simple. It got the shaft by Fox, but I think the SCI FI Channel should seriously consider bringing it back.
Ben Elsbernd
caeser5786(at)gmail.com
Back to the top.
