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
Who Cares If Andre Norton Is A Woman?
elcome to 1999. Issue No. 90 of Science Fiction Weekly reflects how similar the late '90s are to the late 1950s. Robert Heinlein, suffering from a literal lack of oxygen to the brain (and thank the creator for the shunt procedure that allowed that fine brain to put out a few more novels) wrote I Will Fear No Evil, exploring a man resurrected in a woman's body. While a bit dark and ham-handed, the pure intent of exploration existed within, and broached the fascinating concept of six or eight (depending) human sexes. Alas, as a species we evolve slowly. There is a sadness to the Tiptree award, a sorrow that a tale still depends on its reception on the person who tells it. Exploring the cosmos contained in books as a lad I could not have cared less if Andre Norton was a woman (Alice Mary Norton) or Carolyn Keene was a bunch of guys chomping cigars over an old Underwood. It was the tales, the images, the places I would be taken by these wordsmiths that was important. It still is.
I am glad Poul Anderson and Michael Moorcock are still hale and writing. Spacefarers sounds well worth a read, and the doomed Elric has nearly achieved archetype status. I also hope Richard Matheson is with us, as with Heinlein and Tolkien he formed the triad of most influential authors in my early life. I do not agree that The Last Man on Earth is existentialist; rather it is survivalist and a cautionary tale. The Omega Man, the [Charlton] Heston vehicle that was the third incarnation of I Am Legend had its own points to emphasize, none of which were the same as Matheson's original short novel. That is the way it is with film and TV, and so be it. It is again (as I believe Stephen King wrote) "the tale, not he who tells it."
Michael Loveland
TheMiqque@WorldNet.att.net
Trekkers And Trekkies Are The Same
would just like to make a quick point about the recent hot debate about the movie Star Trek: Insurrection.
Several letter-writers have mentioned "Trekkies" and/or "Trekkers," as if the two are really different. Both groups are simply people who enjoy Star Trek. Someone who doesn't enjoy a particular movie or episode can still be a Trekkie or Trekker. And someone who's not a Trekkie or Trekker can enjoy any movie or episode. It's entertainment, and two people enjoying any part of it can discuss it in a friendly fashion, and make new acquaintances through Star Trek.
So let's keep it at friendly discussion. Everyone can have his or her own opinion on any given movie, without this opinion affecting his or her friendships with others, or the mutual respect fans should show towards each other. It's not sacrilege to find faults with Star Trek: Insurrection. It's just a movie, meant firstly for entertainment, and secondly to make you think, let's take each as it comes, as entertainment, rather than some kind of religious creed.
Irina Ruden
iruden@brynmawr.edu
Star Trek Isn't A Religion
have just started to catch up on the letters sections in the past few editions. Boy, am I glad I live in Guam away from all the upset fans. I saw [Star Trek: Insurrection] before anyone on the mainland saw it, since we are a day ahead of you. My wife and I both loved it. Our interest was held through the whole movie and we both felt that it "worked." There is much I could say to the grumps who like to complain and want all the depth of a book placed in a two-hour movie. Well, It' s not going to happen with Star Trek or any other SF movie.
I have been at conventions where they had whole panels set up to slam a show, movie or book. Rather that complain just be thankful that they are doing the medium at all. The last thing we want or need is for the production to stop. I am sure most of you are too young to remember that there was a time when SF movies, TV shows and well written books were almost unheard of. When the original Trek went off the air there was no quality SF at all and it took years for more to appear. Do not ever assume that the present number of shows that we are currently treated to will continue. Does this mean we must suffer poor material?
No, as a group of fans we are a choosy clan. All we have to do is look at all the bad SF that has crashed and burned on TV, movies and in print. We simply don't support it. If you truly feel that Star Trek is not going they way you want it to, write letters to people who can do something. If you are in the majority they will change the style or simply stop producing it. You must always remember that it is not a religion to the studio or the actors who play the parts. Too often I am confronted with fans who seem to adopted it as one.
Bill Wernik
zathros@ite.net
Judge Insurrection Fairly
eading [the comments about Star Trek: Insurrection], I can't believe that there are only two points of view: both on the extremes of the spectrum. Some say that just because Insurrection carries the name Star Trek, it is the best movie of the year while others say that it was drivel and does not live up to the Star Trek name. I say the movie was good, even though it had some weak points (don't all movies have plot hang-ups?).
Insurrection should be judged fairly, according to its merit as a movie, not the fact that it carries the name Star Trek. Nor should it be compared to individual Trek episodes because it is a movie, not a TV show and [Rick] Berman's aim was to appeal to an audience that does not have too much prior knowledge of Star Trek (so they can follow the story line!).
I saw the movie on opening night, and had an enjoyable time. If I was sitting there the whole time and saying "That doesn't work with the S.T. universe" or "That was a really bad line and the joke was really bad" like I was a movie critic, then I would have wasted seven dollars. On the whole it was a good movie (not a television show).
Gabe Chavez
kromman@hotmail.com
Star Trek Has Become Stale
've been reading the letters concerning the movie: Star Trek: Insurrection and would like to add my thoughts as one who was not thrilled by the movie. I see its main problem being that the story was simplistic, obvious, and small.
In the movie, the "aliens" our crew protects are your basic good-looking "humans." Their enemies are of course hideous looking. Right there I had a problem. First please let us see aliens, not humans. Second, why can't the "good" aliens be less pleasing to our eyes? All we would lose is Picard's love interest, and guess what, it wasn't going to go anywhere anyway.
It's a sad state when the two-minute trailer for the upcoming Star Wars film has more aliens, environments, action, etc. than this two-hour movie. The Star Wars films let me believe that I was out in space. I saw different planets, architectures, races, fleets, etc. Star Trek? I saw some nice mountains that I could drive to and see myself.
The Star Trek movies have become stale.
Louis Sivo
louis_sivo@hp.com
Trek And Its Fans Need To Grow Up
am amused, saddened, incensed by all the hoopla about Star Trek: Insurrection in the Letters column.
This is not an outstanding, over-the-top movie of any genre. It is fine entertainment, though. It has plenty of comedic lines for those bored with drama. It is enough of a drama to attract non-SF viewers. It is not a tremendous Trek story, just a story.
And why do people have the gall to write that Jonathan Frakes needs to lose weight? I don't know any male or female who is the perfect body and face. Why are some people still buying into the American media hang-up of weight and form and attraction? I find this to be saddest of all. SF fans are supposed to be bright, intelligent, and willing to imagine. I haven't seen much except shallow nit-picking and doomsaying since the ninth movie premiered.
I'm really tired of all the little plans to destroy and save the galaxy in recent Trek movies. I'd spend more money on Trek if these characters all grew up and started experiencing adult lives with love, marriage, etc. None of them have managed to do this in over 30 years. I'd rather see these people maturing than just stopping another crazed alien. I have thought for decades the powers at Paramount can't recognize a gem of an idea from doo-doo. Fans continue to ask for adult people with adult lives, and are only offered shoot-em-ups. That's what my dad raised me on long ago, and they're nice to visit, but I don't exist there. Paramount needs to hire and trust a few women with imagination and writing skills.
Cindy Ramey
daryah@sssnet.com
Insurrection Was Good Enough
am not a fan of Star Trek and never will be. I don't care if they mispronounce Kingon, if the specs of the ship are right, etc. When I watch Trek I watch it for the most basic reasons. I want to see good acting and a good story. For me, Insurrection had all that. Good enough for me.
Joseph Morgan Ives
jives@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
Seen It All Before
'm sorry, but to all those making the argument that Insurrection was a decent movie, I have to disagree. While I found it entertaining or a base level (I wasn't bored), it did nothing more for me. I read a few comments saying it was thought-provoking, and it almost was. However, it just didn't give me that final kick that really makes a person ponder (read Heinlein if you want thought-provoking, by the way).
But, even the lack of stimulation wasn't what bothered me. What I found to be the most undesirable is the fact that it just followed the standard Hollywood formula straight-on. I mean, I laughed when the kid lost his pet, not because I'm cold, but because I've seen it all before (how many times?) and now it all seems so cheesy.
Insurrection was riddled with this kind of material. I guess I just don't understand how people can like seeing this stuff over and over (through different Hollywood films). And now back to the "thought-provoking" part. Wouldn't it be a lot more thought-provoking if it was more original? Aren't people tired of re-hashed plots? To me, it's sad when Star Trek (and science fiction in general) movies sacrifice quality for a bigger audience.
Jeff Gibson
montjoy@mknet.ml.org
Insurrection Is A Date Movie
aving read peoples' comments regarding Star Trek: Insurrection, I'm reminded of what is almost a truism: "fanatics have no sense of humor." To that you can add: "and precious little grip on reality."
Come on, recognize ST:I for what it is: the first Trek date movie. Picard, Troi, and Riker finally showing that there is more to them than a bunch of stoics addressing philosophical questions. This is a group of actors who have worked together for many years. They're comfortable with each other and it shows. If it were reality, these same people, after all this time, would be expected to have a deeper appreciation of and interaction with each other.
Yes, there are dud moments--Data's "lock and load" scene, why the hell Riker, commanding one of the most powerful ships in the Fleet, doesn't at least send a salvo of photon torpedoes back at his pursuers, the drones lining up stand-off/showdown fashion waiting to be shot, the kid's ease at losing his father and moving smoothly towards bonding with Data, and (my personal disappointing moment) the quality of the special effects when the Enterprise enters the "Briar Patch."
But on balance there are wonderful moments aimed at the general cinema-going public leavened with several moralistic questions which we've come to expect and (what to non-Trek fans may be a surprise) the statement that things are going very badly for the Federation (an empire in decline and what it will do to preserve itself).
As for the Trekker versus Trekkie comment, please, that debate is about as banal and full of craving to be taken seriously (while unconsciously admitting that they have doubts themselves) as the insistence by some people that science fiction should be referred to as SF rather than Sci-Fi. Let's not bring either one back.
Finally, remember the whole idea of making a Trek movie (or X-Files or, well, anything) is that it is accessible enough to the broad population to turn a profit and so justify another installment and yet leave the die-hards satisfied.
SF:I's box-office returns say it's met criterion 1; those who feel it missed the mark on criterion 2, well, be glad that there's a chance for another installment to assuage your resentment.
Yuri Shukost
publ@spirit.com.au
Insurrection Is Out Of Character
enjoyed Insurrection well enough as a movie. However, here's a point that I found alarming. I actually met Gene Roddenberry once some years back and I know that his vision of the future was idealized. That's what made the original series so popular (well, one of the things). In those days, it was refreshing to imagine that your great great grandkids would live in a nice world. However, Insurrection portrays a Federation in decay willing to do something deceptive and wrong just to get what they want. That seemed very out of character to me.
Sure there have been stories about one bad egg somewhere in Starfleet or the Federation, but as a whole they were outstanding institutions. (I'll admit I haven't seen all of the The Next Generations and others...know there was a few episodes where Starfleet was being controlled by brain bugs or something--but that's another matter).
I think since Mr. Roddenberry has been gone, the rose colored glasses are gone, too. Is that more realistic? Probably yes. But it isn't the cornerstone of optimism that made Star Trek what it is today.
Sure, the technology on this movie was weird (bussard ram jet technology?). But here's a news flash: The technology on all the shows is weird. As much as I love the old series, the technology has to be overlooked. That's especially true when you see the '60s era technology (big light bulbs, chattering computers, etc.). But I love it. My nine-year-old son, on the other hand, thinks it looks ridiculous and enjoys the movies because they have the effects he has come to expect. As an engineer, I can't think of any of the shows or movies where you could not hold the technology up to any reasonable standard and expect it to deliver.
If nothing else, Insurrection insures that some kernel of Roddenberry's dream will continue to the (dare I say it) next generation, and hopefully beyond. It gives me a certain sense of comfort to know that my son will watch Star Trek, and share a little bit in the dreams and ideals that I've enjoyed from the show. And maybe he'll pass that along to his children as well.
Al Williams
alw@al-williams.com
