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
B5 is SF, Star Wars Is Fantasy
y far, the best treatment of science fiction and explanation of what
science fiction is and where it has been is James Gunn's, The Road to
Science Fiction anthology series, which alternates short stories with
literary essays on the genre. It is eminently more accessible and
readable than Brian Aldiss' dense graduate-level Trillion Year Spree.
The Gunn series is very difficult to find now and if anyone could point
me in the direction of a complete set, I would be in SF heaven.
Another good treatment of just the pulp magazine fiction of the '30s,
'40s, and '50s is Brian Aldiss' excellent two-volume Galactic Empires set.
However, I would like to take a moment to defend Babylon 5 specifically and
point out one of the important differences between SF and fantasy by
comparing B5 and Star Wars. Star Wars is precisely part of the problem
why SF is difficult to separate from fantasy. It occurred to me one
day in a flash that the story told in Star Wars could have been told
just as well if the characters rode dragons instead of starships, lived
on a fantasy world, and the Emperor lived in a flying castle rather than
a Deathstar. In fact, the Jedi Knights would fit better there than in a
space opera. What this demonstrates is that science fiction is more
than just a setting, it is content and basic cultural assumptions as
well; Star Wars was a fantasy story in a science fiction setting.
What makes it a fantasy story? Fantasy stories frequently and usually
are concerned with individual characters and feature mystical and
unexplained forces as major plot and setting elements; in Star Wars,
consider "The Force." Conversely, while many of the elements of science
fiction plots and settings may be a long stretch, the one thing that
science fiction takes care to do is to provide enough plausibility to
suspend disbelief, thus, we get the usual amount of "gobblygook" that
would not stand a minute against real scientific investigation.
However, the intent and requirement are there that are not present in
fantasy; no explanation is offered or expected for magic, dragons, or
The Force, it is part of the setting and you either take it or leave it.
Additionally, science fiction is concerned less with the moralities of
individual characters than it is about the grand movements of history
and the situations that this places people in. And this is the
achievement of B5. While B5 uses the standard props of the SF setting that are required for star-spanning SF stories, the real
story is not in the gadgets, but resides in the greater social questions
that B5 addresses and treats in a very thoughtful and sincere manner.
In B5, you can feel the grand movements of history, after the first
season, it was the story of the series. Granted, the series is "guilty"
of using psionics, which is the closest that true SF comes to the
mystical forces of the fantasy genre, but I can forgive B5 this
breach because B5 is the first Hollywood SF production of any type
that I have seen seriously consider the social problems that would be
created by the psi-dream. For example, recall the arguments of Mr.
Edgar of Mars or the manipulations and utopian dreams of Bester or the
rebellion of Ms. Alexander.
Thus, B5 is probably the best thing that has happened to Hollywood
SF; this series finally fulfilled the potential of what television
SF could have been 20 years ago. It combined excellent SF
writing with excellent screenplay writing and acting, good special
effects, a decent budget, and most importantly, it escaped the
shoe-string short term expectations and the pressures of the ratings
wars and the pressures of conservative producers to present a real
SF story worthy of the name.
Charles Phillips
stlev@sgi.net
Set Phrasing On Technobabble
read your review of Star Trek: Insurrection and I realized that the keepers of the Star Trek flame are still up to their old gimmicks. I haven't yet seen the movie (and having read the script on the Internet about
six months ago, I'll probably wait 'till it hits video), but I noticed from the review that the planet they are "saving" is surrounded by "metaphasic rings," etc.
I'm sure the film has wonderful production values and interesting crew interactions, but I will probably die of shock if Piller/Berman actually come up with a movie/episode which doesn't have the word "phase" in it (in one form or another). If I ever hear Geordi say that word again, I may go into seizures. Trivia buffs can probably figure out the number of times this word has been abused in the post-Roddenberry Trek universe, but if it's under 100 separate instances, I'll eat my (nonexistent) hat. It is the Star Trek: The Next Generation catchall technobabble phrase, and it truly has degraded the entire franchise.
Michael Lustig
mpl@blackrock.com
You Need Literature And Entertainment
worry about people who think entertainment is a four-letter word and seems to have depth, but no surface. Such a life seems brooding, unbalanced, and joyless to me. With that said I did not like Starship Troopers and have no interest in seeing Godzilla. Does this make me a snob? Hardly, I mean Short Circuit, and Explorers are two of my favorite movies. I did not like Starship Troopers because it just seemed rather stupid to me. I hated all the characters and almost rooted for them to be killed off. Plus, it was really sophomoric, but than again so was Heinlein at times. I neither know nor care how scientifically accurate it was. However I'll admit there is a point where even I can't suspend my disbelief enough. Remember Stargate? Well that's one example, and most of those '50s B-movies are another.
Actually, though, if a movie is well acted and written it could have the moon laying eggs and I'd like it (If someone thinks Starship Troopers was well acted then maybe I am thinking of a different movie.) To a lesser extent this goes with books. I do not expect much from film science fiction, but I tend to want greater depth and insight from science fiction books. I don't think literature is a dirty word either and I think it is good to have some depth as well as a surface. Nevertheless, a deep, insightful book need not be scientifically accurate either. Cordwainer Smith wrote stuff that was scientifically absurd and maybe even scientifically illiterate, but I generally could overlook that and enjoy his stuff. Also, the first science fiction book I bought was a Star Trek, amongst the most recent were Childhood's End and A Canticle for Leibowitz. My point? A person needs literature and entertainment, rational thought and romantic idealism, complex ideas and simple pleasures. In short balance.
Felix C. Forrest
Forrest@sff.net
SF Isn't As Dead As You Think
everal things have prompted me to write. First off, science fiction today is not as dead as some would think. Kids don't seem to have the imagination (except for those whose parents foster it) that we did years ago. Space operas like those written by E.E. "Doc" Smith that propelled readers into far galaxies to battle evil are losing out to "modern living." Losing oneself in a great adventure, that was the ticket. Kids now have "friends" who are more absorbed in items that are purchased off the street and wanting to give them a new thrill, than looking into a book to dream of fantasy.
Another thing that really grips my butt...things that SF authors wrote about in the '50s about life in the '90s are not becoming commonplace or even halfway commonplace. We should be way ahead now in the exploration of space and the colonization of the moon. We are a country severely lacking in a leadership realm that was lost with John F. Kennedy. We need a leader that will send a message that we can and will expand our frontiers. Gene Roddenberry dreamed to boldly go where no man has gone before. We may just get that dream. If we don't watch it, we will be going boldly where the dinosaur went...I don't think this is quite what he had in mind.
Mike Coonfield
mlcsac@alltel.net
Don't Forget About The Women
omething struck me about the letters. There were at least two references that were male-only oriented. One referred to "all those guys." As if there were no female SF/F writers at all, either present or past. Anybody ever heard of Kate Wilhelm, Judith Merril or C.L.Moore? Just to mention three. And there are many others, some of whom have been writing longer than "all those guys" out there. The other reference was to slanting the literature to teenage boys, as was commonly done in the past. Isn't this an anachronism today?
Also, I have to agree with some of the letter writers who made the point that excessive criticism takes away or lessens the joy of experience. The creating of false dichotomies of "hard" versus "soft" doesn't help, either.
Doesn't the enjoyment of all literature, SF&F or not, require "willing suspension of belief"?
MWSatlin@aol.com
Mary Satlin
Revel In The Diversity Of The Genre
was interested in the latest generation of SF fans arguing over what is and isn't, what's good and what's drivel. Welcome to some of the most re-plowed ground in the genre! For the hard science fans let me make one quick point--what's the second word in the genre's name? If I want well written prose that is scientifically accurate, there are plenty of highly literate magazines and journals out there.
And don't forget there are plenty of works that are certifiably "science fiction" that have darn little science but plenty on the human interaction with the results and processes of science. Don't believe me. Go see how much science there is in any of Asimov's robot books. Just enough to add leavening to the story and no more. Argue the good doctor's qualifications if you choose.
As to why movies like Godzilla and Dune fail at the box office: They forgot that they had to appeal to the core audience of those stories. Godzilla was perhaps too science and not campy enough. Dune was just a wretched interpretation of Herbert's vision. Starship Troopers failed, as another writer pointed out, because its advertising offered one thing and the movie delivered another.
Revel my brothers and sisters in the glorious diversity of our beloved genre! Enjoy it all for what it is, for what it is magnificent!
Jay Phillippi
jdrp@cecomet.net
SF Has Gone Mainstream
t is refreshing to find literate, insightful ideas as to what defines "science fiction." It must show that society (in general) has begun to take to this genre of literature, and I use the term genre in its largest context, because not only are science fiction movies some of the most popular movies to date; but also it has become curriculum at university. So we can talk for ages about the ghettoisation of science fiction into its various sub-genres, and there are enough to make most people violently ill, but first we should step back and marvel at how widespread it has become. Take for example Star Trek or Star Wars. These are not just sub-genres of science fiction, these have entered mass consciousness. These are not the favorites of a particular group of people. Entire societies recognize and relate to the above two; that is the amount of influence that the science fiction "genre" has. It affects everyone, whether they want to admit it or not. It is difficult if not impossible to find a person who was not changed as a result of these two shows (movies, whatever). This may be taking it to extremes, but I think not. Science fiction (and fantasy fiction both being basically the same thing) have taken shape in the mainstream; writers like William Gibson, Guy Gavriel Kay, Pat Cadigan, Bruce Sterling have all entered the mass consciousness. They are not only read by science fiction/fantasy fans. They are read by society in general because they are good authors and when the author is good it is irrelevant as to whether or not they are "genre" writers or not.
David Booton
bootoncan@netscape.net
SF And Fantasy Are Like The U.S. And Canada
t seems the definition of a science fiction film is action adventure with special effects. Although there is nothing wrong with those kinds of movies, I like some actiony stuff, science fiction can be so much more than that. For example Groundhog Day, Eve's Bayou, and The Secret of Nimh are all science fiction, fantasy or supernatural films, yet I wonder how many consider them that. Also some of my favorite SF books and stories are sweet and calm so if they became movies they might not be considered science fiction movies. Although since the Sci-fi Channel runs movies like Big and a movie based on Asimov's "Bicentennial Man" is called science fiction I might be overreacting on this area of definitions. (Although I wouldn't put it past Hollywood to add a space battle or something to "Bicentennial Man.")
As for the written stuff, well I hate to be backwards, but I don't like it when stuff is all lumped together. I get the feeling some of you if asked "Where is the border between the U.S. and Canada?" would answer that there was no border or that there shouldn't be a border or that the border is where you "feel" it should be. Okay, that it is a bit of a stretch, but I want you to know I am not entirely unsympathetic to you guys. I mean, if an author doesn't want to be considered a science fiction author that's their business. It really irked me when I read someone say Greg Bear was cyberpunk even though he didn't think he was. If you don't want to be labeled as something, you shouldn't be. As for the adventure, philosophical, prophetic thing Campbell talked about, I find that very interesting. Unfortunately I am not sure how many "pure" examples of that there'd be. Most SF stories, the good ones at least, are more than just action, philosophy, or prophecy. I think I'd also add educational and world building to those three as well. I think much of science fiction mixes those three to five up.
Abel Tasman
tasman@eidolon.net
Standing Up For Invasion Earth
his is in response to the review Mr. John Platt wrote of Invasion: Earth. I watched the first installment last night, with husband and brother, and all three of us are eagerly awaiting part two. It was an expellant introduction to what I believe will be an excellent miniseries.
I don't understand Mr. Platt's negative comments: about the special effects--they were better then I would have expect from a made-for-tv series coming out of Britain--the BBC doesn't have the same budget as Spielberg!
And if he found the ending "ambiguous," well, time will tell, but I, for one, find tidy, happy endings fairly annoying and generally unbelievable. Life isn't tidy, and I say kudos to the writers for acknowledging that and not taking the easy way out.
I think, Mr. Platt, you are spoiled by over-the-top American TV, and should spend a little more time with what the BBC has to offer. It usually turns out to have a lot of hidden gems and ideas that put American TV to shame.
Tabaqui
changeling@catbones.com
Gives Troopers An "A" For Effort
t seems that the "nature of science fiction" has become the "in" topic lately. For me, as someone who has been reading science fiction and fantasy since the early '60s, the nature of science fiction has always been a point of debate. The answer, I think, was summed up by one author when he said that "Science fiction is what I am pointing at when I say 'science fiction'" (or words to that effect.
I have thought hard on the possible reasons why Starship Troopers performed so badly at the box office. I thought that everyone who had ever read the book would have seen the film at least once. I knew from the trailers that the film seriously departed from the Heinlein technology, but I saw it anyway. I was impressed that the film still managed to convey to most of what Heinlein said to me in the book (about growing up and accepting responsibility). Yes, I would have loved to see marines running--and jumping--around in powered armor, but I understand about budget limitations. But still, the director/producer still managed to include a few key elements, such as a pilot's exceptional skills, the horrors of the Bugs, the teamwork, and so on. An "A" for effort, but a "B+" for execution.
Neville Angove
nangove@ozemail.com.au
