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
Science fiction is not just special effects
ell I must say your publication, Science Fiction Weekly, really irked a few of us Stargate SG-1 fans after reading your "Fall Predictions" article, especially since the article did not seem to be written by someone who has seen all six episodes of SG-1 aired so far. First of all the writer of the article looked upon "mean aliens" and "special effects" as what a science fiction TV show is supposed to be all about. The series won't stay too long because it does not focus its plot on evil aliens and special effects? Quite the opposite.
The avid fans of SG-1 have been watching and to the contrary of the author of the "Fall Preview" article, we feel the series is indeed getting better. Recent episodes have given character background but not aliens and special effects, but this is bad? Call me insane but I actually do like learning about the history of characters and watch them put to rest some of their greatest struggles. It really seems that people are missing the point...Richard Dean Anderson does one of the best performances of his career, if not the best, in the episode "Cold Lazarus" but it is a bad episode because it focuses on the Colonel O'Neill character and not on special effects, action and aliens?!
Wake up science fiction fans! This is exactly what is wrong with sci-fi fans today, science fiction is not aliens and special effects and action! Science fiction is about, in essence, looking at the human race. Sometimes it takes aliens, action, and special effects to get us there, but in essence it is all about plot. So a real science fiction TV show like Stargate SG-1 is bashed for actually trying to do what others have not? I think that we are at a very sad place in time for science fiction.
Stargate SG-1 has its 44 episode commitment, it has to go that far. If people can't watch it with an open mind and see that science fiction isn't all special effects and razzle dazzle well then science fiction is doomed and movies like Independence Day, Men in Black, and Godzilla will be looked upon as great science fiction while actual science fiction like Stargate SG-1 is over-looked.
Sean Fitzgibbons
lobot@mail.idt.net
Editor: Kathie, the writer who covered Stargate SG-1, assures me that she has seen all six episodes.
Hollywood, are you listening?
read the earlier comments on Event Horizon before typing this. Not that I needed them to form my own opinion. At least by the midpoint of the movie I was asking my wife if she wanted to leave. I should say that I have never voluntarily left a movie before the credits that I can remember. I wanted to leave this one. It is boring, misrepresented, and just not up to the standards that science-fiction fans expect and want ... oh well, I will be more careful before I pay full-price again for another sci-fi flick. Alas, all we want are good movies ... Hollywood? are you reading these ...?
Hank Baca
hbaca@aol.com
Is The Sparrow science fiction?
hanks for another excellent issue. I just started reading The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell. It is amazing and I would like it if there was some attention paid to this novel. The only problem is this: is it sci-fi? With its near future setting and first contact plot the answer would definitely be yes, but I work at a bookstore and the hardcover was originally released as a fiction novel, but the trade paper edition was released as a science fiction novel (well at least at my store). I think because of this some people missed out. I would appreciate it if you could shed some more light on this deserving book. If you have already done so and I have missed the review because I am a new subscriber then I apologize for the inconvenience.
Matthew N. Hogan
kingmob789@aol.com
Editor: I went to the source and asked Mary Doria Russell directly. She replied:
Villard, the hardcover publisher, decided to begin by positioning the book as mainstream, hoping to broaden its market, believing that SF readers would find it eventually (and they have--it won the 1996 Tiptree Award, came in third for the 1997 John W. Campbell Memorial Award and was the only novel to make the Locus Poll list without having been recommended by Locus initially). The book is selling very well both to SF fans and to people who say, "I hate science fiction but I loved this book." So Ballantine is more relaxed about calling the paperback SF--it's already proved itself in the mainstream (it was the top-ranked novel of 1996 in Entertainment Weekly, for example), so they won't lose sales. It's being marketed in the U.K. as straight SF, with no waffling or apologies, however.
Obviously, categories like SF and mainstream and horror, etc. are all about maximizing profits by making a book easy to classify and sell. My hope while writing the book was that its category would simply be "a good read."
Wants to hear the Star Wars cast
agree with your opinion that [the Star Wars] radio drama was pulled off very nicely. I have the cassette version of it. I do somewhat agree with you about Perry King's version of Han Solo. I think it could've been done better, but he did an adequate job. Actually, all in all, I would've liked to have seen (actually in this case heard) the voices of the entire regular cast instead of just Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels. In my opinion, that would've made the series even more enjoyable.
David Gustafson
dgustaf@mailexcite.com
