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.
ike Dave Clack ("Fantasy Can't Compete With Sci-Fi"), I am also a sci-fi fan, and have been for many years. However, I strayed into the fantasy genre out of curiosity and found it enjoyable but almost self-limiting. I think the boundaries were unwittingly set by Tolkien, and most of the authors that I have read do not stray much beyond these boundaries. However, I have just read a book that is fantasy but annihilates the cozy frame of reference that all other fantasy authors appear to be bound into. This is China Miéville's The Scar, not a book for everyone, but a book that resets the fantasy genre into an adult frame of reference.
I have not read any of his other stories yet. I understand that The Scar is preceded by another story set on the same world but with different characters. But I do hope that this style of fantasy will catch on, as it will give what I believe has become a stale genre far wider horizons for future authors to explore. Sci-fi has never really had any boundaries to constrain it, which I believe has been its strength. Maybe with the Miéville books the fantasy genre has been set free of its 20th-century roots. Should this come to pass, hard-nosed sci-fi fans, like me, will have a harder time knocking fantasy.
Antony Gooding
[address withheld by request]
can't believe my favorite new show, Threshold, was given the axe. Putting Threshold on against the SCI FI Channel's Friday-night, well-established, juggernaut was a big mistake. There are a lot of sci-fi fans out there, just don't make us choose. Sci-fi shows should be spread around so that they aren't competing with other sci-fi shows. The fanbase is there.
As if this wasn't bad enough, it was then moved to Tuesday with no notice. It was also missing for at least a week. How do they expect fans to find it when they do things like this? I'd be all set to watch a new episode, only to find something else was on instead.
Threshold was a fantastic show. It was the best of the new season's sci-fi-themed shows. The writing was excellent, as were the characters. Usually, I only care about one or two characters a lot, and the rest I can take or leave. But with Threshold, I loved every single character.
The show was so exciting, it sort of reminded me of 24. I couldn't wait to see what was going to happen next. Not since Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered has a show grabbed hold of me so hard from episode one. I loved it from the beginning.
The actors were fantastic. You had Brent Spiner, who has a huge following from his Star Trek days! That alone guaranteed a large sci-fi audience. And yet somehow CBS managed to blow it. Surface was the lesser of the three new sci-fi shows, yet it is still around, and I thought I read somewhere it was going to be back next season.
Bring back Threshold! It deserves another chance. Something is very wrong when a great show like Threshold, with great writers, characters and cast doesn't make the cut. I'm reminded of JAG, which was canceled on its original network. It was rescued by a different network and became a top-rated show that ran for many years.
Sandra Cunningham
sjcunningham(at)att.net
'd like to offer an alternative to Mr. Kaan's letter, "Whedon's Wine Is More Like Ripple." Science fiction, while often rich with science or speculation, doesn't necessarily have science as a major factor in the story.
To clarify [Joss] Whedon's comments, where he avoided any science talk, there's a major reason for this. While science is important, it's not the most important in this case. It's the story that's more important here. It doesn't really impact the story with the knowledge of the space flight of a Firefly-class transport.
Ron Moore, the creator of the new Battlestar Galactica has made similar comments, when the first episode, "33," came out. In the episode, the Cylons come after the fleet every 33 minutes. Moore doesn't, and refuses to explain why it's 33 minutes. The point of this is not to explain some alien technology for tracking enemy ships, but to focus more on the effects of the story. Larger-budget science-fiction movies such as Star Wars have almost no science in them at all, yet they are considered to be sci-fi movies.
We're coming out of an age of technobabble that defined a lot of earlier science-fiction television shows. One thing that makes them interesting is how heavily scientific theories were used, with older shows such as Star Trek and newer ones such as Stargate. With Firefly and Battlestar Galactica, the shows aren't about exploration, discovery or science. It's about the people that the shows revolve around. Ditto for Lost. Science fiction is slowly but surely moving to be more character-oriented with a light-to-heavy science-fiction atmosphere, such as Lost and Battlestar Galactica/Firefly, respectively. It's about the stories, first and foremost, not how the doors open and the ships fly. Personally, I find the characters to be a whole lot more interesting than the technical aspects.
This leads to the question: Is a show that's set in space, without a whole lot of science, considered science fiction? Sure. Giving it a western theme to add some flavor doesn't take away the fact that this is a sci-fi show.
So, if the man who created the so-called piece of crap show doesn't know the answer, does it really matter? I think not.
Andrew Liptak
JediTrilobite(at)gmail.com
'm writing this in response to David Kaan's letter in last week's column ("Whedon's Wine Is More Like Ripple"):
First of all, allow me to agree with you on your statement that Ghost Whisperer is not science fiction. At best, it is paranormal fantasy or one of those new classifications people have been so easily throwing around as of late. I will not agree with you on the subject of Lost if only because I do not feel that enough explanation has been given yet to classify the show.
Now then, on to the part where we cease to agree. From your letter, sir, you strike me as the kind of person who has a very specific idea about what science fiction is (not to mention a member of the school of "If it's canceled it must be crap"). I do not presume to know what you like, but given your talk of there not being any S in the F anymore, I'm going to chalk you down as being pretty old-school in your tastes. The kind of guy that reads through his Heinlein collection regularly, and loves him some Star Trek: TNG.
Now, keep in mind that I'm still generalizing pretty fiercely here, but I'd venture to say that your tastes have led you to be seemingly narrow-minded, especially given that you seem to have lost sight of one of the first rules of writing.
Character matters.
That's right, I said it. Character matters. I know it, Joss Whedon knows it, Gene Roddenberry knew it, Stephen King knows it, and just about anybody who writes good, complete science fiction knows it, too. In the long run, in any truly good story, (regardless of genre), the characters, their individual arcs, the storyline and how it plays out are infinitely more important than the specific tropes of the genre the story exists in.
Now, is there any great science in Firefly? God no, and there shouldn't be either, because overdoing the science kills the illusion. Firefly isn't about what Serenity is fueled by or whether or not it can go faster than light (it can't, there's no real need for it to); it's about the people living on this incredibly utilitarian yet incredibly beautiful little ship and just trying to go about their lives, just trying to do their jobs. It's a human drama wrapped up in an adventure show designed to show us a vision of the future in which we see that life will still be as real then as it is now, and that while technology and science change, people never do.
It's something that Mr. Whedon showed us with his much-abused show, but we've seen it before. Babylon 5, Farscape, Star Wars, both Battlestar Galacticas, Dune, even the original Star Trek and its movies. In these, science has always taken a back seat to the people and the story they are living, and they have been made all the better for it.
As for Joss Whedon himself, you seem to have a problem with a couple of the things that he said in a completely different interview than the one linked in your letter. Despite a very self-deprecating sense of humor, which led to the comments you seem to have taken offense to, Mr. Whedon is not a scientist, he does not pretend to be, and it is very likely that he does not care about the science that may appear in his show in any way, because he knows that character matters. A fact that is very well illustrated in a quotation from him in the previously linked interview:
"And I think it was also the kind of TV I always strive, and don't always succeed but always strive, to make. Which is the kind of TV that basically grabs you by the gut, that makes you fall in love with the characters instantly, or at worst gradually. And to the point where their lives are incorporated into your own."
Firefly is not crap because of this. Whedon, like all good writers, is out to create worlds and living, breathing people to fill them, not rubbish conversations about crystal matrixes or warp coils. Those things do not matter in the end; they are merely tropes to be applied, set dressing on a world you wish to look different from the real one. You speak of there needing to be S in the F, sir, but to overlook the dreadful importance of the F is utter foolishness.
Character matters.
Sean Doyle
[address withheld by request]
n response to David Kaan's letter "Whedon's Wine Is More Like Ripple": It is interesting to read David's letter; to see a "true" SF fan raving about the S in SF. It's people like him that influence Hollywood to think that enough flashing lights accurately spelling out FTL along with other quaint scientific phrases are what make a good TV series or movie. Plotline, character development and humor all mixed together in the right proportions are what make a great SF movie or series stand out from a special-effects disaster. Science fiction is just a backdrop to put a good story on. I watched all of the Firefly episodes and the movie, and found what makes this type of series interesting are the characters and what they do, from the opening titles to the ending credits. Movies like the original Star Wars totally missed the technical accuracy element, but the characters, their blasters and the plotline has endeared the move to us "true" fans forever. And for his complaints of this being "bad western in space" sounds like the 1960s critics words to describe "a poor Wagon Train to the stars." We all know that is how the original Star Trek was initially received, but this was how the unimaginative public and even lesser imaginative studio execs perceived a great work of science fiction. I'm sure David Kaan can count them among his friends and peers.
David's comments on reading good science fiction, what does that have to do with a good movie? A writer has several hundred pages, spanning 10s to 100s of hours of reading time, with exotic and mundane landscapes and environments only limited by the reader's imagination (being in short supply for David). This great canvas the writer uses will allow the description of all of the technical nuances of FTL technology, along with subspace navigation and communications, as well as the shielding technology to protect oneself while traveling while also telling us a good story. A movie has about two hours and a limited budget to develop the characters, environment, tell a story, all the while keeping the audience entertained, and a TV series only has 40 minutes. Movies and TV series like Star Wars, Star Trek (not Voyager), Babylon 5, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, Firefly and others keep us entertained with characters we can watch and identify with, and plots that are entertaining.
I think Mr. Whedon took a good idea, put together a great cast and worked out entertaining scripts (even under studio pressure) to make Firefly a memorable series with memorable characters. I, for one, am saddened at a loss of good SF series like Firefly after only one season.
Steven Parsons
steven(at)pacificdisplay.com
ot a gripe?" says [Science Fiction Weekly's] header in the letters section.... And people "gripe" and complain constantly about what is or what isn't science fiction (as if they even have a clue), writing to complain that this favorite show or that favorite whatever has been canceled or did not receive the audience it should. On the front end, let me clear up a few things. Threshold was not a very good show. Night Stalker was more like a horror show, and it definitely deserves an audience on the SCI FI network (aka the Horror network). Don't expect me to watch it. And don't get me started on Firefly and Serenity. A western in space? It's been done, much better, and it was called Star Wars: A New Hope. Of course I was not a fan of that show and movie, because I never understood the concept behind something like Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I never bought into the mania about this author/creator who came up with the concept (aka not a fanboy). Never watched it—don't care to. In fact, if I had time to watch every single attempt at a genre show (and I am not talking about the crossed-with-something-something "Monster of the Week" that SCI FI Channel showers us with), then I would have no time to do anything else. Does that make me a bad person? Does that mean all these people out there who do no watch your show or read your book are bad? They are the terrible reason why your show was canceled? What kind of argument is that anyway?
Many years ago, at the production company my brother used to work for, I got to read a number of scripts for upcoming projects. Now, I can tell you from experience, 99 percent of what I read was pure, unadulterated crap that no one would pay to see. Or is that not true? I found from experience that some of this crap does make it on screen, little or big. Sometimes there is an audience for crap like Category 6 and 7: The End of Good Writing (albeit one that hoodwinked even me). I have always counted sci-fi fans as some of the most intelligent individuals on the planet. Yet I am constantly amazed by some of the letters I read here. Does every single show deserve a writing/Internet/something campaign to save it, or bring it back? I don't think so. Does every single failed premise deserve to be resurrected by the SCI FI Channel? I don't think so. Let it go—I too miss Otherland, which the SCI FI Channel has replayed for me. Thanks.
Now I don't mind intelligent and thoughtful letter writers and editors who point out a gem that, in my busy life, I might have missed. There are many a book recommendation I followed from the Science Fiction Weekly Web site and I was not disappointed. And please, no attack or hate mail. Of course I have my opinion, and it does not always agree with the opinion of every other Sci-Fi Weekly reader. In that vein, then, some personal gems: Armageddon was the worst (so-called) genre film ever made; please bring Doctor Who (and all its incarnations) to the SCI FI Channel; Threshold died because it was too formulaic and offered nothing original; I love Surface even though the writing sometimes takes bizarre and stupid turns (things people would never say or do—or shouldn't anyway), but the characters are wonderful—even the kid and his sister; Invasion has not yet grown on me, and I only watch it because it follows Lost. ... Which brings me to my last point: Lost is the essence of a "genre" show, just as Quantum Leap was, and if you don't get "it," you don't really understand science fiction. And oh, by the way, while I am "ranting," fantasy belongs next to science fiction, as long as it offers something different than the 200th incarnation of a rehashed dragon/knight/reborn hero storyline. Was Susanna Clarke writing science fiction or fantasy or ... what, when she wrote Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell? And why did it win the Hugo anyway?
Lastly, when "you" ask SCI FI to bring, or purchase, a show to the channel, please remember, that SCI FI is owned by NBC, which is owned by Universal, which sort of limits what it can "buy." Makes me want to ask this question of the powers that be at the channel: "How come you let the crappy 'G4' network purchase the rights to the Star Trek universe series? What, are you spending too much money on series like Stargate SG-1 which should have been retired three years ago?" ... It's called "tongue-in-cheek," people. Lighten up and a Happy New Year to all Science Fiction Weekly readers, editors, et al.
Michael Papagermanos
michael_papagermanos(at)hotmail.com
have read several letters on [Science Fiction Weekly] over the years in reference to the need of repairing the Star Trek franchise. Most of the letters have been directed to the "tune" that Star Trek needs to go back to its roots or it needs to go on a hiatus for a number of years due to the inundated amounts of shows and movies that have been produced in the last 20 years.
I disagree on all fronts in regards to these letters.
Between the various time-travel episodes in the different Star Trek series/movies, along with an entire TV series (Enterprise) devoted to fleshing out the history of the Star Trek universe, going back to the roots has been done to death. I personally feel that the fourth season of Enterprise was extremely well conceived and written and was one of the best years of Trek on TV. Unfortunately, very few others noticed due to the damage that was done during the first two seasons. I think it is safe to say that the basic history of events, from flight of the first warp-drive ship to the return of the starship Voyager to the Alpha Quadrant, have been told and should be laid to rest.
Should there be a hiatus in the production of additional Star Trek series or movies? I don't think this is necessary either. The franchise could be carried forward with an original idea that has not popped up in the Star Trek universe before. You could cast all new characters or could carry the journey of Capt. Riker forward (make him into a tragic character). Turn the Alpha Quadrant upside down by introducing a nemesis that residents of the Alpha Quadrant can't beat (unlike the Dominion) that leads to the eventual destruction of the Federation, the
Klingon Empire and the Romulan Empire. A nemesis that will force the major powers into an uneasy alliance just to stay alive (a little like Roddenberry's premise for Andromeda) and to find a way to pick up the pieces if they manage to stop this nemesis.
As a fan of the Star Trek universe, I'm just waiting on a new and grander vision that has not been presented before. Maybe more letters should be written to offer up new ideas for the Star Trek franchise instead of pulverizing what has already been done into the ground. There is hope for this franchise if the right people listen.
David Richmond
babcomdave(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
