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. If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
-- Craig E. Engler, Editor
Rise of Endymion review missed the point
ust disagree with your reviewer's comments on The Rise of Endymion by Dan Simmons. It is those philosophical elements that your reviewer found to be dull reading, that do, in my mind, take the story to a truly satisfying higher level. The grandeur of the entire epic is not reduced one iota by this fourth book. If anything, the grandeur is more focused and more defined than in the Hyperion books, making it more relevant. As only a great book can do, The Rise of Endymion can change the way you look at life, and the way you wish to live it.
Don Ketchek
dketchek@frontiernet.net
Disagrees vehemently with Spawn review
To Kathie Huddleston,
aving read your reviews for a while, I've tended to be extremely agreeable with most of your ratings. The Spawn review is an exception to that rule.
It's possible my antipathy towards this movie comes from having watched the equally execrable Batman & Robin. Both feature a series of
illogical stunt/SFX sequences bound together by wishes and desires, not
plot. Flashy trash would be my two-word review of both movies. Your
willingness to overlook the logic chasms in this movie while pinning
Bombshell on the same petard is baffling.
Bluntly, Todd's comic was an excuse to do Batman in a Ditko-esque
world by way of Kirby imagery. Whether it be Hell, Purgatory or the too
common representation of the Internet as a series of mathematical
abstracts, it doesn't take long for the psychedelic look to wear me out.
Frankly makes me crave for the saner days of Peter Max(x?)! Its use
here for Hell was far less imaginative than the creators of this movie
would like to believe. Anybody who's old enough to have read Ditko,
Kirby and Steranko yawned through these "dazzling" parts.
The comic story was (is?) thin and the movie just stretched it even
further. The Priest-for-Chapel replacement was just another conceit that
a chunk of the back-story could be torn out and exchanged for a two-bit,
walk-on part. (Any play on words is strictly from your end.) The
back story you found so enthralling confused my companion for the night,
a lady in her late 20s with no comics-reading background. As per M. J.
White's acting, I suspect he'll eventually go the way of his cape and be
completely computer-generated in any far-off sequel, heaven forbid there
should ever be one.
One last minor nit was the misspelling of Brion James' name in your
review. I believe he's a fellow Canuck and a fine character actor. I
enjoy his pug-work. Thought it might be worth mentioning for future
reviews.
While I have disagreed vehemently with you on this one, keep up the
work. We'll probably be on the same wavelength the next time out.
Gary Mugford
mugford@aztec-net.com
Editor: You're correct...we had misspelled Brion's name. It' s since been corrected.
Nyby, not Hawks, directed The Thing
hanks for spotlighting a great SF film, The Thing. However, your blanket statement that Howard Hawks was the real director is somewhat disturbing. I'm not a film historian, but there was a long article in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year discussing this issue. Although many of the parties are no longer alive and the records are sketchy, the article concluded that in all probability Christian Nyby did indeed direct The Thing, albeit with some mentoring from Hawks. I don't know if the Times keeps archival articles like this on their Web site, but you might want to try to find it and decide for yourself if you agree with them.
Norman Cook
unclescrooge@hotmail.com
Facts? I think not...
irst of all I would like to let you guys know that you have a really good Web site. I was disturbed by something in your article about the new Canadian science fiction channel in your August 11 edition. You stated that the channel would show science or fact based shows along the line of Sightings. I beg to differ on this point. Shows that "report" on UFO's and paranormal events are neither science based nor science fact. Far too many TV shows and media interests portray these subjects as foregone conclusions when there has never been any scientific support for their claims. Well that's my two cents worth. Thanks.
Matt Koehler
KoehlerMatthewJ@exchange.uams.edu
Warning to U.K. readers
've just read your review of the Babylon 5 audio CD. I hope I'm wrong, but it appears that your review contains a major spoiler to season four. Please try to remember that the Internet is global: We in the U.K. are still at the start of season four and know nothing about the future of the shadows. But it seems that your review has let slip a serious plot point that affects
the entire show.
Surely Science Fiction Weekly knows how important it is not to spoil a tightly-plotted, arced show such as B5. You have spoilt it for me, so please put a spoiler warning at the top of your review to prevent spoiling the enjoyment of other non-U.S. surfers.
Jer White
jwhite@sunlin.uk.Sun.COM
