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
Earth offers nothing new
n response to Kathie Huddleston's review of Earth: Final Conflict, I must say that I disagree with her assessment of the new show. Having Roddenberry's name will undoubtedly cause some interest, however the show must stand on its own!
The story, mysterious aliens offer unreciprocated help to the poor humans, however there may be unknown ulterior motives for this charity. Is this anything new? This ground has been covered untold times from the Twilight Zone to V. The reviewer also noted the terrific special effects and sets. Well beauty is in the eyes of the beholder I guess. For myself, the sets look laughable and completely out of context with the rest of the setting. Now perhaps the producers wanted to create an outer-worldly feel to emphasize the difference between the aliens and us, who knows. Kathie also notes the uniqueness of the characterizations, the good and bad guys are not easily identifiable. While this is a rather new concept for television (complex characters) one need only to have been watching Babylon 5 for the past four years to recognize this is not such a new idea.
It appears that people are viewing this show through "Roddenberry Rose Colored Glasses" and failing to give it an honest assessment due to reverence for its creator. Gene Roddenberry contributed tremendously to science fiction and television with his two Star Trek series. But this really isn't his show, and his idea has been done many times since its conception in the mid 1970s. There is nothing new or innovative in Earth: Final Conflict, and that rather disappoints me.
Brad LaForme
ai035@hwcn.org
Confused about Martha Soukup
'm somewhat confused by Susan Dunman's little quote at the end of her review of the new Martha Soukup collection. Does she have a problem with these stories being "a little bit feminist"? And what does she mean by "a little bit"? If they were a lot feminist, would that be a bigger problem?
In the context of the review, that comment comes across as narrow-minded and distancing excuse-making: a sort of "This book has some aspects that I am not willing to be associated with, but there were parts of it I liked."
By all means, single out the fact that the marvelous Ms. Soukup is an excellent writer. Sure, tell us that her writing appears to present her as a feminist (of whatever stripe). But something like that should be a part of the review, there must be a reason for said deconstruction, and you had better be willing to back up your thoughts.
Remember, Kim Stanley Robinson is a feminist, yet I don't recall seeing any similar pigeon-holing comments at the end of reviews of his Mars books.
Derryl Murphy
derryl_murphy@compuserve.com
Editor: The answers are: 1) No. 2) I imagine something between "a lot" and "not at all." 3) No.
I kissed a Martian
saw your write-up of the Little Green Martians site and checked it out. I even kissed a Martian and tried to figure out how the UFO (a 727 jetliner?) got to Mars. This SFW reader could easily detect the sarcasm and greatly enjoyed the off-beat humor. Anyone who has checked out this site knows that this is a big, tongue-in-cheek spoof of the Pathfinder mission and the "you got to be kidding" tabloid like coverage of LGM. (A real Terran tabloid ran a story a few weeks ago that Pathfinder found and proved that a wooden Ark, like Noah's, was found on Mars.) This is a site to be enjoyed and not to be "taken seriously." It's like watching Space Balls, MST3K, etc. It's just meant to be fun and to poke a little innocent fun at the conspiracy buffs.
Besides, the real reason behind the "Face on Mars" is that aliens carved
it there so that they could laugh at all the silly "hairless apes" as we
try to figure out how it got there. Aren't we giving them a good show! (Remember, I'm just kidding.)
Tracy Majkol
tmajkol@kc-primary.net
Soylent Green = Make Room, Make Room
'm amazed that you didn't mention [that] Soylent Green was (somewhat) based on Harry Harrison's fantastic novel, Make Room, Make Room (1966).
If Tamara liked the movie, then she should love the book, because Harrison evokes a truly dark and dismal New York of the future. The movie fails to capture the feeling of complete hopelessness and despair.
Steve Goodwin
steve.goodwin@aspect.com.au
