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
Nancy Kress Changed It All
ince this week's topic seems to be leaning towards female readers and how
they view the genre, I thought I'd toss in my two cents worth. I am, however,
not a female.
I guess that I've always been a guilty party to the belief that women can't
write good SF. Fantasy, sure, but not hard-core SF; that's always
been traditionally a "guy thing." I am glad that I've been wrong for all
these years! I had finally read Nancy Kress's work...that changed it all.
Beggars and Choosers absolutely blew me away! I went right out the next
day and bought everything she's written. I haven't been sorry I did it,
either.
Rick Noah
photo@redshift.com
Baxter Has Chutzpah
tephen Baxter's response to Andrew Lias' strictures is, well, gracious to a fault. I find Mr. Baxter's characters to work reasonably well, given the context of his books. I remember reading Kingsley Amis (who was quoting C.S. Lewis) remark to the effect that having odd things described by odd people represents an oddity too many. SF novels that contain carefully worked out, multi-layered characters tend sometimes to fail (according to me) just because the focus will not settle between the two. Henry James in space helmet, so to speak. (There's an idea: Daisy Miller goes to Mars.) I remember thinking The Time Ships to be quite a successful pastiche of H.G. Wells' Edwardian prose. If Mr. Baxter was unable to keep it up for the entire length of his very long novel, well, that's not too surprising. It took a lot of chutzpah just to attempt it.
Mr. Lias' remarks about plot devices and such may have more weight, though. Must give it some thought. What a treat to read reasoned criticism of a book! So different from the usual loved-it, hated-it response.
Wayne Daniels
wdaniels@nypl.north-york.on.ca
Editor's Note: Stephen Baxter was not responding to Andrew Lias' letter. He had sent in a note regarding the Science Fiction Weekly review of his book Vacuum Diagrams and we ran it next to the Lias letter because they were about the same subject.
SF's Stars Lack Time And Space
've never read anything by Stephen Baxter, but his work
sounds very much like the pseudo documentaries by Robert A. Heinlein. It's long
been a regret of mine that many of the most highly touted SF writers
could use a few sessions in writing 101. Great works like 2001, on the
screen, are epic and breathtaking. Reading the book is like stumbling
through a plowed field in the dark. Heinlein is not only a clumsy
writer, but his characters are all flat and lifeless. His protagonist
is blown away--who cares? His main man is in a tight spot...ho hum
again. A snap of the super human or highest (but slightly dumb) tech
fingers and empires rise and fall, or the hero emerges supreme.
All of his work seems to be a bland future documentary you might watch
on A&E channel, for lack of anything else to watch.
Far too many of the "stars" in SF pose interesting problems, only to run
out of time or space (or--I suspect--mostly imagination) in the solution
phase. Thankfully there are enough writers out there who are not part of the
"ole' boys club" to keep the shelves stocked with good, enjoyable SF.
Thank the stars for them.
Bill Hardy
roy@inlandnet.com
SF Could Be The Cure
have been voraciously reading science fiction and fantasy since I was about nine or 10 years old. I guess I was so busy enjoying myself and all those neat places I went, I didn't bother to notice I wasn't supposed to be doing it!
I started out with C.S.Lewis, Jules Verne, Tolkien, L'Engle, Bradbury, Heinlein and just kept going. I did not have the best childhood in the world and I truly believe the books I constantly read were what kept me sane.
If nothing else, they taught me so much! Things like honor, courage, determination, following your dreams and the most important--valuing every being for themselves/itself. I don't believe anyone can read as much SF as I have and still be prejudiced!
Perhaps they should make it required reading in the schools nowadays. It could be the cure. What better and more enjoyable way is there to teach children that prejudice and bigotry are wrong?
I find it interesting that so many women who enjoy the same literature as I do don't like romance novels, novels that we're "supposed" to like. Is it possible that a predilection for literature that portrays women in a strong, positive manner creates a deep disgust for romance novels?
Valari Boyle
Valari@Mailcity.com
Likes Hard SF But Not Fantasy
o add my 37-year-old voice to the ongoing discussion about women and SF: I am the sort of reader who dislikes fantasy (except for the wonderful Terry Pratchett) but adores "hard SF." I think my favorite book is Heart of the Comet by Gregory Benford and David Brin. I love Arthur C. Clarke, some Asimov, Heinlein--but not all--some is complete rubbish, like Job. I wonder what he was on?
Katrine Roberts
jgkarob@dnet.net.id
Fantasy Is Not SF's Poor Cousin
n the topic of gender typing when it comes to who reads what, I've seen some unfair bashing of fantasy going on in this column. As a woman who reads both, may I interject that those who treat this genre as a poor cousin to SF take a look beyond the Tolkien clones and give it a chance? There are some wonderful stories out there, and characters worth getting to know. Those who like Ellison's way with language might find Charles de Lint's Newford series and Terry Pratchett ranks as an equal to anything Douglas Adams or Spider Robinson (in the Callahan universe) have come up with. Ray Bradbury's works are just as much flights of fancy as speculation about what we'll meet out there. There are sociopolitical issues and explorations of the human spirit going on in fantasy novels, just as they are in any form of science fiction.
Standing on any of Jupiter's moons is as unlikely for us as visiting Lothlorien, so what makes one "better" or to be taken more seriously than the other?
Fantasy is more than "dragons, trolls and wizards." It's just as much about ideas and the struggle of sapient life trying to better itself (or at least survive) as the most revered "hard" science fiction. Yes, there's fluff and formula, but for every fairy- and unicorn-tale with cardboard characters, there's a the-machines-will-save-us story with the same.
And I shouldn't need to remind any of you of Clarke's comment about sufficiently advanced technology.
Linda Stoops
jassmoris@yahoo.com
Fandom Is Appalling
have been following the letters regarding women SF fans and I have to let
you know that as a long time reader of SF, I find fandom appalling. My
interest in SF began when my father took me to see Forbidden Planet when I
was six or seven. I then inherited a bunch of superhero comics from the guy next door and got hooked on them. That accounts for my current interest in some graphic novels like the Sandman series, etc. My final conversion came in 1964 when on my way home from the World's Fair in New York, my grandmother let me buy a paperback book of Ray Bradbury stories to read on the bus. I had read my fair share of SF from the library, but had been restricted to "juveniles" thanks to a repressive system that would not allow youngsters with an "intermediate" card to take out "adult" fiction. I subscribe to several SF magazines, belong to an SF book club and enjoy SF movies and TV shows that are not "dumb".
As for "fandom", my experiences with such have left me running hard in the
opposite direction. I have enough mentally unstable relatives; I don't need
to be around any more weirdoes. As much as I enjoy SF, it does not consume my
life. I have no interest in learning conversational Klingon, dressing like a
Darkovrian or getting lost in role-playing games. I have a career, a home and a life. I do like to escape once in a while to the world of imagination and dream of the possibilities and improbabilities of the future. It could be that there are a lot of women out there who enjoy SF in relative silence, like me.
Gretta Germroth
tomngretta@aol.com
The Puppet Masters Was Not Sexist
hile I found your review of The Puppet Masters pretty good, I want to take exception to your comments on the sexism. First, it is a tough-guy spy story told from the point of view of that tough guy. He was a sexist. Tough guys in fiction usually are. Read Mike Hammer.
The aliens, Masters, were not human. So when an alien riding a human was around the opposite sex they had no feeling. This was I believe Heinlein's answer to those woman-loving bug-eyed monsters that were on the covers of many SF pulps. Just a simple plot device and again from the point of view of the tough guy.
Joseph C. McGuire
joseph@sos.net
