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
A little more sensitivity, please
n the recent review of Nancy Kress' book Maximum Light offered up by Clinton Lawrence, the reviewer indicated that one of the main characters participated in a fag-bash outing, apparently as casual entertainment.
I spent two weeks in the hospital once having my skull and face put back together after a carload (yes, it is only when there are several guys together do they feel it appropriate to take on a fairy) of late-teen or early-20-something males out for fun made their semi-regular run through a gay establishment's parking lot.
Accordingly, I feel strongly that if such an event is a plot point that the reviewer felt the need to mention, it should not have been thrown out without a bit more detail on how such an event was portrayed. From the review, one might suppose the main character routinely went on such outings as casual recreation--how am I, or many others, not just gay people but any who hate unprovoked violence, supposed to feel about a character--or a book--that suggests there is nothing wrong with that attitude that it is
okay to have roving groups acting out violently against any who don't fit
their mind set?
Or maybe the book made a strong statement against such violence, but the reviewer didn't feel (apparently) it necessary to note that. It is easy for people not affected to gloss over such things; it may never have occurred to the reviewer, but a shockingly large number of gay men have experienced this kind of group hate/violence and we don't take it too casually. A little sensitivity would always be appreciated; a bit more attention to details in reviews would help too.
I would like, for the record, to note that I don't approve of censorship in any form. Even if this book took a positive attitude toward hate violence, I am not one of those that would demand G.L.A.D. to have it barred from publication or something...but I would like to know one way or the other so I can choose not to support such an attitude by not buying the book, and making sure others also know so they can make an educated choice.
Science Fiction Weekly is great in general, I love the site! Great resource for sci-fans!
Gen Aris
gen@gbso.net
Clinton Lawrence responds:
Mr. Aris,
I would like to reassure you that Nancy Kress does not portray the incident in either a casual or approving light. The character in question, Shana, has some very realistic personality flaws, and among them are a lack of sensitivity and faulty judgment. She also goes on the expedition only reluctantly, and doesn't really plan to be much of a participant. Later, when she turns to Nick for help, she confesses what happens, and he is thoroughly disgusted by her conduct and bigotry. While I don't know exactly why Kress decided to use this kind of incident in her novel, I am quite certain by its portrayal that she treated it in an appropriately sensitive manner.
I would also like to assure you that I detest hate violence as well, and I am very sorry to hear that you have been a victim. I would not hesitate to criticize a work that used such an incident in an inflammatory or exploitative manner. When deciding what to describe in the reviews, many difficult choices have to be made. In the plot summary, I mentioned the incident because it advanced the plot in a crucial manner. I didn't give a fuller explanation of Kress's portrayal because other elements were more important in contributing to Kress's main themes. In the future, when faced with a similar situation, I will attempt to better explain the author's portrayal of such controversial plot elements.
I hope this explanation has answered some of your questions. As a reviewer, I feel I've learned from your comments, and I'll keep them in mind when I write reviews in the future.
Best wishes,
Clinton Lawrence
clint@scifiweekly.com
There is serious SF
hris Snider's recent lament about the lack of serious SF movies would've been more valid had he written it a year ago. This past year we've seen the release of three of the best serious SF movies since Blade Runner. I'm talking about Contact, Dark City, and the best of them all, Gattaca. After years of clichéd, sophomoric celluloid, these movies have rekindled my "faith" in Hollywood. Gattaca seems to be repeating Blade Runner's track record--initially ignored, but those who see it, love it. Trust me, Gattaca will be viewed, critiqued and remembered for years to come. It's there waiting to be discovered by those of us who truly love and appreciate great SF.
Daniel Thorne
DLoganThorne@WebTV.net
Stargate SG-1 deserves a second look
'm not going to lie to you, I have always had faith in Stargate SG-1, however others have not. Last summer, as the series premiere approached, many people tuned in and then promptly tuned out. Most people saw the pilot and then wrote the show off, or at most, saw the first three episodes and then decided to write the show off. A few of us though, those of us who enjoyed the movie and knew what a great premise the show had, stuck around and saw a great show develop.
I bring this to everyone's attention now because recently Stargate SG-1 has finally won back those viewers who quickly judged it. When did this all happen? Well it was all year, but everything came to a head when "There But for the Grace of God" aired. I enjoyed the episode on a personal level but immediately knew that this episode had achieved success on various levels. How? Well I was out of town the day it aired and had my sister, a longtime hater and basher of the show (the exact words were, "who the hell watches this crap?"), and she ended up watching the show. On the tape you can see her turning down the volume during the beginning of the episode, and then a few minutes later the volume shoots back up. My sister later explained that she really got into the show and then when it ended dramatically she was left hanging and yelling at the TV because she didn't want the episode to end. Now keep in mind my sister hated SG-1 before this episode and really didn't care much for science fiction as a whole.
Well now I have at least one other person in my family who enjoys this show as much as I and is now a dedicated watcher of the show...however a little late in coming. I explained to her that there were only two new episodes left until summer and she was extremely disappointed, so I pulled out my old tapes and brought up some of the better shows of the season for her to watch. She enjoyed them and really did feel that she had missed out on the show since it began.
However, this is just with my sister. I hit the newsgroups after "There But for the Grace of God" aired and several people were posting how much they enjoyed the episode. The next week "Politics," a retrospective episode, aired and those who tuned in for that after "There But for the Grace of God" felt cheated out of a great show. I encourage all those who wrote SG-1 off in the first few episodes to take a second look. Go ahead and see "There But for the Grace of God" and say that SG-1 isn't capable of becoming a great show. Everyone is so demanding with television shows nowadays, it all has to be good from the start, whereas most shows (SF especially) take about a season to find its place. Star Trek: The Next Generation's first season was anything but spectacular [and the same can be said] for Babylon 5, but these shows needed that first season to find their place and then began producing amazing episodes. SG-1 has taken a season to find its place and is now a terrific show with an ever growing following.
By the time anyone reads this SG-1's first season will be history (with what looks to be a spectacular finale) and those who missed it will just have to hold on until this summer for SG-1's second season to come along...then they can kick themselves for what they have missed. So take a second look at SG-1, you don't know what you're missing.
Sean Fitzgibbons
lobot@mediaone.net
Event Horizon wasn't boring
would have to strongly disagree with several points of Tamara I. Hladik's review of Event Horizon. She called it "a little boring, with some real nasty bits." I have a hard time figuring out how she was bored. The whole movie was evenly paced, so that the slow spots in the movie served to increase tension, not provide boredom. I thought that the movie succeeded through the horror genre in every way, especially with the special effects and short camera shots serving to leave lasting impressions in the viewer's mind. She also called the movie "implausible" (it's an outer space, science fiction movie--of course it's going to seem "implausible"). Her point about the scene with Sam Neill in the circuit-board tunnels was right on, except for her assertion that the ship seemed most alive/sentient/malevolent (which is to infer that the ship was always alive and not inanimate, whereas the plot to this movie clearly states otherwise). Combined with her other observations, her review appeared jaded in the way it appears that she failed to come into this movie with an open mind (which is perhaps the most important aspect of a movie review), and thus was unable to appreciate this film in its entirety.
Nicholas Orr
fsnpo@aurora.alaska.edu
Verhoeven is a xenophobe
tarship Troopers is the most disturbing piece of xenophobic tripe I have ever seen. Humanity has evolved into a fascist society where only those people who are or who have been in government service are allowed to vote. An army "scientist" blasts a limb off of a caged alien soldier causing obvious extreme pain, turns to the camera, coldly pronounces the alien still 86 percent combat effective, and then turns back around and kills it with another blast. This same "scientist" walking up to a captured alien creature which is securely wrapped in a large net, using telepathy to read its mind, turning around and smugly announcing to the surrounding horde of assembled, blood-lusting soldiers, "It's afraid" (No kidding. Do you think?). This same captured alien being tortured (large probes stabbed into its side and mouth--not carefully inserted but thrust in like a spear puncturing the skin and body of the alien with a satisfying pop and resulting scream of pain) while it is restrained and unable to move, in order to "study" it. The characterization of the aliens by the human government as unintelligent, brutish creatures only fit to be ground under the heels of mankind. An especially disturbing scene (which I suppose was meant to be funny) of children stamping insects on a sidewalk while their parents cheered them on, and the television announcer encouraging everyone to "do their part" in defeating the enemy.
I suppose all of this is supposed to make the audience cheer in triumph, since it was this alien race who sent an asteroid crashing into Buenos Aires after a colony of humans had built a city on one of their planets, and had the temerity to kill (quite painfully and gorily) human soldiers who came to defend the Earth by attacking and wiping out the alien races. Aliens who can kill humans by stabbing them in the tops of their heads and sucking out their brains.
Still, I couldn't shake the feeling that if you took away the science fiction trappings and changed the alien "bugs" to humans, all I was watching was a film that could have been made by Joseph Goebbels or Joseph Stalin 40 or 50 years ago. The human "Master Race" exercising its "right" to go wherever and do whatever it wants with no consideration of other, alien races. Government officials and the media touting service to the state as the highest calling to aspire to in life. Weak, sniveling parents who are opposed to their son joining the army, after which he will become a "Citizen." These same parents later killed by the alien asteroid (and, by the way, eliminated from society) which inspires their son to reconsider his "mistake" of resigning from the army. Smiling, young, sexually robust humans charging off to war to kill and be killed. Director Paul Verhoeven doesn't even make a very good effort to disguise the fascist trappings. The Army "scientists" are dressed in long, black trench coats and black caps, very reminiscent of the Nazi Gestapo. The head "scientist" is even blond-haired for God's sake. (Although I didn't notice if he had blue eyes.)
I suppose all of this wouldn't bother me so much, except that these people are the heroes of the movie--the ones that we are supposed to identify with. At least when Mr. Verhoeven did a similar thing in RoboCop, it was the hero who opposed the fascist institutions of the government. In Starship Troopers the fascist government is the hero of the movie. No amount of spectacular effects, blood-lusting gore, and pulse-pounding action can cover up the stink that emanates from the core of Starship Troopers.
Edwin Frydendall
EdwinGene@Aol.Com
Still more on Shakespeare
urther to the Shakespeare discussion; none of Shakespeare's plots were original. Not his histories, not his tragedies and not his comedies. Most are taken from Holinshed's Chronicles, although "A Comedy of Errors" is a reworking of a play from ancient Greece! Shakespeare may be remembered as a great playwright but his true talent was poetry. Everything else was plagiarism.
Dale Irwin
daleirwin@xtra.co.nz
