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 Isn't About Science
read Thos. M. Jolly's letter with some amusement. His idea of some sort of "pure" science fiction with a hard scientific basis is a complete misreading of the genre. Science fiction is no more about actual science than Victorian fiction is actually about Queen Victoria.
Even the books he puts forth as paragons of real scientific speculation are not "scientific." The robots in I, Robot have positronic brains--in other words, they are made up of antimatter. Asimov himself cheerfully admitted that the explanation didn't stand up to any sort of real scrutiny; it was just a word he had chosen. And the Ringworld is unstable; another scientific impossibility (not to mention the idea of luck being an inherited trait).
Since the genre was named, there have only been a handful of science fiction writers who cared about scientific plausibility--and most of them would drop it in a moment if the facts got in the way of a story. Even the "plausible" science that Mr. Jolly's favorite authors use to justify things is generally just smoke and mirrors. In Mr. Jolly's world, it's perfectly okay to have a warp drive as long as you stop the story to give a bit of gobbledegook to explain it. Otherwise, it's not "science fiction."
Science fiction has always been a form of fantasy. The "scientific" part of it is just a conceit. If you're only interested in scientific plausibility, you won't find it in SF--and never would have.
Chuck Rothman
sf_writer@yahoo.com
Don't Confuse SF With Fantasy
. M. Jolly's comments are somewhat misguided I think. Stephen Baxter, Gregory Benford, Geoffrey A. Landis, Charles Sheffield, and Slonczewski are all scientists or science-educated people who write sci-fi (I hate the term, but s.f. is San Francisco as far as I'm concerned). Nancy Kress and Brian Stableford write stuff that involves science, but manage to balance it with literary sensibilities. (The others do to an extent, but Kress and Stableford have the most even balance of science and literature.) However I would agree with the frustration about science fiction being confused with fantasy. I don't even consider them related. They have totally different histories.
Fantasy is a form of storytelling that probably predates writing, but science fiction is the product of an industrial/technological civilization. Okay, maybe that means skiffy is the fantasy of industrial/technological civilizations, but I also don't consider something science fictional unless it has seems believable. I believe someone said that standard would eliminate 90 percent of what we now consider skiffy. And I have no problem with that. (Although I bend the believability rule when it comes to humor, because it'd be hard to make funny science fiction without making it unbelievable.)
However, think about that 10 percent. It is out there. As for me, since I am a product of a technological civilization I prefer science fiction, after all. Ten percent is a big number when you consider how much stuff has been labeled sci-fi., scientifiction, skiffy, etc. over the years.
Yurek Rutz
yurekrutz@sff.net
SF Ain't What It Used To Be
or the most part, I tend to agree with Mr. Jolly's contention that the SF genre isn't what it used to be. The genre of traditional SF itself isn't dead, but it has been seriously ill. In fact, I tend to think of the majority of SF published and especially what you see on TV (this includes Star Trek and B5) not as "science" fiction but "future" fantasy or maybe "science" fantasy with a heavy emphasis on the fantasy. This is especially true when one considers the number of plots or characters who use or have some form of ESP or other psychic power. Maybe the genre should now be called pseudoscience fiction.
SF used to take a premise and ask what if. The best SF asked some pretty tough and often uncomfortable questions. It was thought-provoking and stimulated discussion. Some of it made you dream of the future and the possibilities it offered. Fortunately, there are still a few authors that attempt to do this. Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars series jumps to mind. Greg Benford's Timescape is another book I could recommend. Greg Egan's Diaspora is interesting. John Varley has some interesting topics he touches upon in books like Steel Beach and Ophiuchi Hotline, but his problem is that he doesn't really develop them far enough. I kept thinking, yeah, let's explore this idea further, let's take it a bit more seriously. Maybe someday he will.
Yes Mr. Jolly, like you I've gone back to rereading the classics but fortunately there are authors still breathing life in the old body. It's not terminal yet.
Mike Kimble
mkimble@ecentral.com
SF Ain't Dead Either
am afraid that I must strongly disagree with Mr. Jolly's comments regarding the disappearance of real SF. To be quite honest, by his definition, quite a number of classic SF stories, by authors like Clarke and Asimov and perhaps even Clement, were not science fiction. Mr. Jolly's definition of science fiction is more correctly considered a definition of the hard science fiction subgenre, and even here there are times when his definition would exclude a story.
In addition, for Mr. Jolly to claim that science fiction is dead, he must ignore the works of writers like Sheffield, Forward, Egan and Benford, who all usually try to play by the rules of science as we know them; in addition he must also ignore other authors who also write hard SF as well as other forms.
As much as Mr. Jolly would like to believe, there is no hard and firm wall that separates science fiction or even hard science fiction from the broader base of speculative fiction. What does separate science fiction is world view and the methodologies pursued by the characters.
Bill McHale
wmchal1@umbc.edu
If You Want SF, Try C.J. Cherryh
his letter is in response to one written by Mr. Jolly, who contends that the "science fiction genre no longer exists." I beg to differ, Mr. Jolly.
Perhaps you should read the wonderful speculative fiction of C.J. Cherryh's Cyteen trilogy--books that extrapolate upon our current genetic manipulation and cloning--and move them into a far-flung, dangerous, and frightening future world, where humanity can be and is designed, right down to which way you jump...
Or perhaps you should read her excellent Downbelow Station, where the science of space travel, space stations, and ships is neatly interwoven into a plot every bit as convoluted as anything Asimov ever wrote, but much more interesting.
I admit to a certain bias here, but I think that Mr. Jolly is mired in the "classics" and is refusing to even consider anything not written before 1979 as science fiction. Yes, there is a lot of junk out there, but Mr. Gernsback's definition--"science fiction must contain elements of known science or scientific extrapolation based on accepted theory"--is still being written (although I don't think even he should have the pleasure of defining such a broad and ever-changing genre all to himself).
In conclusion, Mr. Jolly--don't be such a downer, there are a lot of amazing books out there, dive in!
Tabaqui
changeling@catbones.com
SF Isn't About Technology
n response to Thos. M. Jolly's letter concerning the lack of "real" science
fiction today; I propose that good SF is not about technology itself but
rather about the impact of technological advancement on human beings and
their society. Concepts like warp drives and self-aware machines provide
writers with literary devices that allow them to examine our species from
new and different angles. The focus of Asimov's robot novels, for example,
is not on the details of how robots function but rather on the philosophical
and social implications of machine intelligence.
Many writers take the existence of things like starships and androids for
granted so that they can focus on other issues. Just because they don't stop
to explain the details of how these things function doesn't, to my mind,
make their work any less enjoyable or valid.
And if the "science" in SF must be correct, where does that put two of the
greatest science fiction works of all time, H.G. Wells' The Time Machine
and The Invisible Man? Both of these works are based on premises that any serious scientist will tell you are totally invalid. Does this make them
fantasy? The reason these books are classics is not because of the accuracy
of their scientific speculation, but rather because of the way they use that
speculation as a springboard to new insights into the human condition.
Incidentally, there is plenty of "hard" SF around today. It's just that most
of it has left the traditional robots and spaceships behind to explore new
regions such as quantum mechanics, nanotechnology, virtual reality and
biological engineering. I won't even attempt to insert a bibliography here,
just a suggestion that if the SF genre is to remain alive and healthy, we
must approach the definition of "science" fiction with as much of an open
mind as possible.
Matt Frey
mfrey@logicon.com
SF's Death Was Exaggerated
hos. M. Jolly's letter of last week "announcing" the death of science fiction as a genre was somewhat exaggerated, in my view. It is more likely just "missing in action." He is correct in his criticism that so much has been lumped under the SF banner to the extent that the term is almost meaningless. The type of fantasy story involving elements of "magic" and supernatural horror has no business being called "science fiction." It is straight "fantasy" whether it is Tolkien or Stephen King!
By rights, The Sci-Fi Channel should be calling itself "The Sci-Fan Channel" (for science fantasy) due to its mixed programming. But on the other hand, to use the original definition of SF as a standard by which to judge all such fiction no longer has relevance. That comes from a time when science had a very narrow vision, especially when it came to the rest of the universe, due to limited resources. But our technological advancement has shown what may be dismissed as fantasy yesterday could become fact tomorrow. Yes, it should continue to be extrapolation based on current scientific principles and accepted theory, but why exclude writers who extrapolate that some current principles and theories may be either wrong or based on insufficient data?
As such, warp drive, jump gates, phasers, even transporters may legitimately be included in science fiction. And I see no reason to include a detailed explanation of such "science" in each and every book in which they appear. I've read such science fiction, and while the science was interesting, the fiction was somewhat boring due to constant interruptions. To be science fiction, a book (or TV show or movie) need not educate people...it is enough if it inspires people to become more interested in science. Broaden the parameters for science fiction and you'll find it is alive and vital--as long as there are limits to separate it from pure supernatural fantasy.
Robin Chase
giltboy@gatewest.net
Now He Likes The Phantom Menace
kay, so I jumped the gun. A few weeks ago, I started a chain of messages regarding the Star Wars title, The Phantom Menace. After seeing the trailer, I realized that the title doesn't matter. This is going to be a great film, right on target for Lucas' legacy. I can't wait for May! Episode I could have been called Blue Moon Cheese for all I care--this could end up being one of the greatest films (of any kind) of all time.
My apologies for any sentiment, implied or otherwise, to the contrary. I can already tell, The Phantom Menace will be perfect!
Martin Cahn
martin.cahn@cwix.com
Remembering Babylon 5
hanks for your appropriate review of "Sleeping in Light," the final Babylon 5 episode. I found the episode profoundly moving (i.e., Kleenex, please) and a fitting end to the series. It's hard for me to say how much I have enjoyed B5. I'm not a "hard-core" fan in the let's-dress-up-as-an-alien sense; instead I was able to enjoy it as literature. Like a great novel--and unlike most SF--its themes were of struggle, accomplishment, great loss, tragedy, sacrifice, forgiveness and redemption.
I will never forget watching "The Coming of Shadows" for the first time and afterward sitting in stunned silence. Suddenly I realized that this show was not about weird aliens or cool weapons; something really big was happening.
That's how I will remember Babylon 5.
Rob Scott
robs@nsmail.net
B5 Showed What SF On TV Could Be
have to echo Craig E. Engler's final comment on the end of Babylon 5:
"Sniff." I will be sad to see the end of the series.
In my neck of the woods, it was a challenge just to find the show.
First it was in syndication, which meant the local stations could put it
on just about any time of the day or night, and usually did. Then, when the
professional basketball and professional hockey seasons started, I could just about kiss it goodbye. Finally, the series moved to TNT, but they put the new shows on late at night (for me, anyway), and I couldn't stay awake to see
them.
But I persevered. In all probability, the struggle to view the show
made me value it all the more.
Babylon 5 showed what science fiction on TV could be. It almost made
up for my disappointment at the money that Paramount spent on Star
Trek: The Next Generation. Why couldn't they have started an original series, instead of feeding off the proven but unoriginal thought stream of the Star Trek phenomenon?
Bruce E. Hanson
behanson@agate.net
B5 Is The Least Uneven Of The Bunch
n answer to Norman Cook's letter on Babylon 5, I have to say I can see it both ways. On the one hand, it's true that none of the movies have had the intensity of the regular series and maybe that can translate as "uneven" if you want to call it that. However, I think the problem is most B5 fans have come to expect an awful lot out of the show. Compare any B5 episode or movie with 80 percent of the episodes from other SF series, especially Star Trek, and it becomes immediately apparent who is the more uneven. Since they write all that garbage in committee, I assume they do have editors.
That being said, I felt that Martin Sheen was a horrible disappointment as a soul hunter and they would have been better off getting whoever played the soul hunter in season one. But on the plus side, it did help improve my opinion of Lochley, whom I'd grown to hate zealously in the first half of season five.
For me, I think the crux of the problem is that I've become used to complex intertwining plotlines that are fully developed over a long course of time. Creating stories that are essentially "asides" and dumping them into two-hour movies doesn't cut it.
The only way it can cut it is if the story is a piece of the larger plot.
David Bright
dbright@ionet.net
SF Is About Entertainment
ecently I've been noticing a trend. It seems to me that some people have forgotten the most important aspect of science fiction, entertainment. I went to the theaters and watched the apparently unpopular movies Starship Troopers and Godzilla. Personally I liked those movies, not because they were scientifically accurate or their plots were outstanding, but because they were entertaining!
I've noticed that people who don't watch SF say so because they know it isn't real. I can understand that, but I've also noticed that people who are very much into SF hate many of the movies because either their plot had much to be desired or what occurs in them isn't scientifically accurate. Personally I've kicked movies like Godzilla around because it wasn't possible, but that doesn't mean I didn't like it!
The point that I'm trying to make here is that before you go around bashing books or movies because they weren't accurate, try thinking about how much fun you had watching it! I thought it was pretty damn fun watching this impossibly large lizard stomping around Fifth Avenue while the new Puff-Daddy Jimmy Page version of Kashmir blared in the background!
Eben Brads
ejbrads@palermo.org
MAPS Is Not Your Average Anime
hoa, wait, hold on, here! Did Tasha Robinson even see the same anime as I did? MAPS a C- pick? The anime I pull out and watch on a regular basis every month, even though I've got the story memorized by now? I think a little clarification is in order...
First off, I've got the subtitled version so the animation pairs with the Japanese dialog a bit better; I've yet to see a really good dub besides Ninja Scroll. And I can't think of a more visceral animation than the scene where Gen pulls the shrapnel out of his leg (yikes!). Perhaps my subbed copy is of a better quality print, but the animation always strikes me as incredible.
Second, Gen Takashima is a space opera fanatic! At the anime's opening we see him engrossed (and his girlfriend much less interested) in a Star Wars type movie. Gen's girlfriend pointedly says she expected an international romance story, to which Gen says, "Well, I did say that it was a story 'far, far away.'" Right there we have the two characters in a nutshell: Gen's the adventurer with his head in the stars, and his girlfriend is looking to go beyond her "tag-along" state of being, trying to push Gen in a more romantic direction. It comes as no surprise to me, then, that when Gen is confronted by Lupimira, Space Pirate--something out of his adventuresome dreams--he doesn't run in the other direction screaming. This is his space film come to life: he is the embodiment of the spirit of that fiction, now fact, being the last descendant of the Nomad Star Tribe.
Third, I can't think of anything more horrific than a weapon that draws power from the fear and terror of sentient creatures about to die by being sliced to bits. This is the motivation behind all the battles being fought, Lupimira's quest, Carallon's rebellion--everything! The fact that the three pieces of the star map are the aiming device for a sacrifice cannon that will use, not groups of beings, but the fear/terror/destruction of whole galaxies as the power source.
This brings me to my final point that Ms. Robinson, from her review, didn't seem to grasp, that MAPS is not your average shoot 'em up space anime. There is a deeper overall story that the viewer realizes only if MAPS is allowed to unfold from part 1 through to part 4. Perhaps the flow of the story communicates differently in the subbed version. As I have not seen the dubbed version, I can only encourage Ms. Robinson to view the subtitled videos and compare them. I honestly cannot reconcile her review with the great anime series I know as MAPS. (To say nothing of that great theme song...)
D. K. "Cat" Kraft
cat@eskimo.com
Legend Is Only A Book
'd just gotten a copy of Legend by Barry Maher when I read Joseph Allen's first letter to Science Fiction Weekly. I hadn't been intending to read the book right away--I had three or four other books in the pile to get to first--but I decided that if the book was as evil as Allen claimed I'd better get it read and get it out of the house as soon as possible. No telling what might happen otherwise, especially with me being young and impressionable and obviously not as spiritually or mentally developed as Mr. Allen.
But guess what? It's only a book. And I don't feel any more evil or any more corrupt than when I began it. In fact, as the people who originally wrote in about the book claimed, it's even rather uplifting. And as dumb and ungodly as I am, I even found reading it a very positive experience. God help me, I even enjoyed it, which of course as any good Puritan knows is the true sign of a depraved activity. If it feels good, it must be bad.
Mr. Allen seems particularly worried about those Legend fans who are trying to let other people know about the book. So I just wanted to let him know that I'm not a joiner, and it never occurred to me to take up their cause. Until I read his second letter. Now if one of them would like to contact me, I'll be glad to devote a couple of hours to helping them spread the word about an exciting, intelligent novel.
Rick Agin
ragin@flashemail.com
Maybe Legend Wasn't Meant To Be
here must be a lesson here somewhere. For years Barry Maher's novel
Legend was completely unknown. Its only claim to fame was actually for
being unknown and making UPI's "10 Most Underrated List."
So now, thanks to the enthusiasm of a few diehard fans, it finally
begins to get the smallest bit of well-deserved exposure. And what
happens? Almost immediately somebody rises up and condemns it as evil
and satanic.
Maybe some books just aren't meant for the mass market.
Mason Komjan
masonite10@hotmail.com
