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.
-- Brooks Peck, Editor
Academic Takes On Rocket Scientist
lease be aware that I read your Web page on a weekly basis, always
enjoying it. Also, let me tell you that I truthfully enjoy the writing
of Wil McCarthy. I am much taken aback with his representation of the
Sapir-Whorf (or language relativity) hypothesis [see the previous Lab Notes column]. As an academic
anthropologist who teaches at the University of Michigan-Dearborn, I
find it highly problematic. Though, as an academic anthropologist, I am
also aware that I'm quibbling over details. While I felt slighted, I am
fully aware that McCarthy knew what he was writing about, and I'm
fully aware that he understood the details. I only disagree with him.
So, as this begins to sound like an attack letter, be aware it is a
thank-you. I disagree with McCarthy's thesis, but see his point,
and it is a good point indeed. And one which needs repeating.
Humankind is more alike than unlike, and your readers need reminding of
this.
Matthew Kapell
kapellm@umd.umich.edu
Was It Budrys Or Francis Bacon?
very week I read letters from people who have read
L. Ron Hubbard's Battlefield Earth. My question is this: Has
anyone out there read in its entirety Hubbard's massive
10-volume Mission Earth novel? Was it any good?
Was it worth your time? I have doubts that Hubbard
really wrote the damn thing anyway. I suspect that Algis
Budrys really wrote it. In addition I can't believe that they
are going to make a sequel to that
gigantic flop Battlefield Earth. It's hardly made enough
to cover Travolta's salary.
Randy Barrett
jrbarrett101@yahoo.com
Rain Sets In On Another Candle
n last week's Science Fiction Weekly a couple of people have decried the
cancellation of favorite TV shows (The Outer Limits and Now and Again). While I
enjoyed both of these, a recently cancelled show I will miss most is the
Pretender. A man using his extraordinary abilities to put away the bad guys
every week with an underlying subplot of conspiracy at the center as an
ongoing issue was very intriguing and entertaining. I would add this to the
cancelled series that SCI FI Channel [should] take up.
Keith A. Rowland
Keith.Rowland@Trans.ge.com
Australian Fishes For Compliments
was wondering what people thought of Farscape as it has
just started here in Australia and frankly it does not
impress me at all, despite the amount of money that has
been spent on the visual look of the program. Most of
the acting looks like it comes from the Gil Gerard/Buck
Rogers school of acting, but I may be too harsh. Has anyone
else a differing view?
Stephen Connell
spc13@hotmail.com
Fan Loves Alien Conspiracy To Death
hatever happened to the late '80s syndicated show War of the Worlds? I used to love that show and would die to see it brought to the SCI FI Channel.
Where else would you find a show about Martians that invade human hosts and a band of rebels trying to fight an alien conspiracy? Is there anyone out there that knows the show I'm talking about? Anyone that would like to see it brought back?
Theodore Wilczynski
www.toysoldiers2001@yahoo.com
Begging SCI FI For The "Truly New"
he SCI FI Channel has been going downhill for a long while now, but Sunday's much-hyped broadcast of Blade Runner really tears it. Why, why, lead us on by promising us a "broadcast event" that turns out to be merely a letterboxed showing of the version of Blade Runner that's been kicking around on network TV since the early 1980s? From the promos, I was expecting something truly new to TV: the "director's cut" version (sans intrusive narration and the stupid happy ending). If the SCI FI Channel really wishes to serve the SF community, it could start by going the extra mile to bring us movies that regular TV doesn't have the demographics to cater to: show us the DCs the networks won't run, show us the smaller films that we may have missed due to poor distribution. Show us something good. Not just the same old crap that we've seen elsewhere before (and with fewer commercials, at that).
S. Lynn
jeremiasd@earthlink.net
(Editor's Note: I believe what made this one different is that it was the original, uncut, widescreen theatrical release of Blade Runner, which had never been seen on TV before.)
Was It Budrys Or David Drake?
or those who might be interested in Roman virtues from a SF slant, I would like to recommend some of David Drake's books set in the Roman Empire: Ranks of Bronze, Vettius and His Friends, Killer (with Karl Edward Wagner), and Deathbirds.
Steve Block
ironhand@stlnet.com
(Editor's Note: In the same vein, I recommend The Centurion's Empire by Sean McMullen.)
Established Cynic Praises Munroe
ravo to Jim Munroe for self-publishing! I haven't seen the book yet in this backwater burg in rural New England, but I started nagging the local library to pick up a copy after I read the review. Why is Gene Wolfe the darling of the media moguls? Because you have to buy 47 books at $15-$30 a pop to finish a story! And then there's the established authors who have five or six different series going. I can rent a movie before I buy it, but I have to pay full hardcover price to read these latest installments. Praise be to the Almighty that nobody has figured out how to make me pay for the privilege of re-reading! (Or is that what the e-book movement is all about?)
E. Clayton Rowe
clayton086@aol.com
Scorn Poured Upon Duchovny
am writing in response to Larry Brewer's comment on David Duchovny and his recent decisions about coming back to The X-Files. I am sure that there were only a few select other people that were happier than me when I learned that the lawsuit had been settled and he would be returning to the show, and that there would be an eighth season. To me, The X-Files is the last bit of good TV that I watch, along with Roswell and Charmed. The other shows that I watch are pretty much reruns. When I read that David Duchovny would only be doing only about half of the season I was a little disappointed, but then I read all of those interviews. People would ask him how he feels about the show's eighth season and he would answer with an "I don't care if there is or isn't another season as long as I get my money" attitude. That really upset me. If it wasn't for The X-Files no one would know him for anything other than Red Shoe Diaries or the handful of movies that he has been in. Which basically means for me that I would not know who he is at all, along with tons of other people. What upset me most though was when I read that he would not even be doing the 11 episodes that he agreed to do, but even fewer. All I could think was "that bastard! Why doesn't he just suck it up and do the eighth season? It's not like he will be doing anything else!" The fans did make him and it would be wonderful to watch him pick up his face as the fans dwindle.
April Jones
Chiana@ivillage.com
Solid Reasons For Trekking On
f Paramount is considering a tenth Star Trek movie, I think everyone agrees
we don't need another story like Star Trek: Insurrection. Movies should
not be glorified TV episodes. Movies need depth, strong characters and
conflicts that shake up old formulas.
My solution: Finish telling the story of Ambassador Spock and the Romulans.
I think Spock's return would be a solid box office hit. All the classic Star Trek/Star Trek: The Next Generation crossovers have been popular. Not only did Kirk's presence in
Star Trek: Generations make it light-years better than Insurrection, but I recall
reading that the two-episode Next Generation story with Spock garnered some of the
highest ratings of the series. The Next Generation episode with Scotty was also
popular (I actually liked it better than the Ambassador Spock story, which
was a bit too political).
Sure, Leonard Nimoy would have to be willing to participate. But he's an
actor, so I'll assume he would not be adverse to one more gig as Spock if a
good script came his way.
I think it's important for a tenth film to be a Star Trek movie--not
exclusively a Next Generation movie. Scotty could appear as well, since his
character is alive and in retirement in the Next Generation universe. Bring in
some of the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine characters (besides Worf). Avery Brooks is a
fine actor, and I'd love to see him sparring with Patrick Stewart. And for
good measure, add Robert Picardo from Star Trek: Voyager ... easy to do since his
character is a hologram.
Need villains (besides the Romulans)? Have the story include characters
from the "Mirror, Mirror" universe. They infiltrate the Federation universe
and try to take over. There's lots of fertile ground here.
Robert Saunders
bobweb@ezwv.com
Fan Tires Of Action-Packed Trek
n a recent issue of Science Fiction Weekly you quote Brannon Braga as saying, "I would say if there's a lesson to be learned from the last one, Star Trek: Insurrection, it's that we need a more formidable, more classic villain, and we need Picard a little less pensive and a little bit more action-packed. That's what we're leaning towards in the next movie. We're hoping that the next film will get back to the grander adventure we had in Star Trek: First Contact."
Everything I've read from fans and critics about Star Trek: Insurrection since the movie was released have all pointed in the same direction as the above quote. Personally, I can't understand why the movie was so unpopular. Have Star Trek fans become so fickle? Are they coming to want to be spoon-fed their sci-fi (especially Trek)? I feel Insurrection had a good script, good storyline and totally captured the essence of Star Trek in its truest form, which hasn't happened since Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country.
First Contact was about action and war, which is more of what typical moviegoers want to see, I suppose. Trek fans have never been "typical." Insurrection, in my view, went back to the more-cerebral approach that Trek is famous for having, and thus I enjoyed it more than the last two films in the series. I also felt there was sufficient action to keep the movie interesting and also keep it from becoming dull.
The scenes where Picard and his love interest were "living in the moment" were absolutely breathtaking and hit home in a most heartfelt manner. Who on Earth hasn't had a time where they wished that particular moment would just go on forever, or even that they could live forever in a peaceful existence?
When I left the theater after seeing Insurrection the first time, and I must say, the next two times--as well as the several times I've watched it on video--I got the feeling that Star Trek was back to what it should be. If they try to make Star Trek 10 into just another action movie I'll be sorely disappointed. I hope I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Howard Blecher
hblecher@1st.net
C'Mon, Give Pessimism A Chance
think I may have an answer to the question of why Star Trek: Deep Space Nine seems to
be overlooked by many, but not all, Star Trek fans. DS9, like Babylon 5, is not
the optimistic view of the future that all of the other Trek shows are.
They are both more realistic, or even pessimistic, in their tone. One of the
things that attracts Trek fans is its optimistic view. Therefore you get
the complaints that DS9 and B5 are "too dark" or that they have "too many
conspiracies." There is nothing wrong with this attitude on the part of the
anti-B5 and anti-DS9 Trekkies, it is simply a matter of taste. This
explanation does not excuse those who will not watch either show, especially
B5, because it is not Trek-like. Those individuals are usually close-minded
and are unwilling to give anything else a chance. This same situation
exists everywhere, as the Tolkien vs. Robert Jordan debate proves. Try The Wheel of Time (at least the first three novels), try DS9 (at
least the first three seasons), and try Babylon 5 (at least the first two seasons) and you will see that just because it is not your father's Tolkien/Star Trek doesn't mean it is not good. In fact, in many cases, they are better.
Tom Curran
adelrond@hotmail.com
