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.
— Scott Edelman, Editor-in-Chief
Send us your letters!
Got a gripe about something going on in the science fiction world? Want to call attention to an overlooked genre gem? Do you disagree with one of our reviews? Would you like to tell the editor of Science Fiction Weekly what a great job he does? Write a letter to the editor and send it in! You'll have the satisfaction of knowing that your letter will be read by thousands of SF fans. Doubtless, fame and fortune will follow (fame and fortune not guaranteed). If you would like to submit a letter, please use our feedback form or send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
ear SCIFI.com: I am a science-fiction, fantasy and horror fan from Greece. There are a large number of SF&F fans in Greece. We are all disappointed from the way Greek TV is handling science fiction and related shows. We have never seen the whole seven seasons of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Voyager and Buffy [the Vampire Slayer] have never aired, Babylon 5 stopped at the middle of [the] fourth season, Farscape aired [only] six first-season episodes!
And the list goes on. In order to see most of these shows, we have to either buy the videotapes or the DVDs now, or alternatively find someone to tape it in the United States or the United Kingdom and mail the tapes to us!
Most of us will never see Witchblade or Firefly due to Greek TV not showing any science-fiction series at all—or if they do, to stop showing it after a season or two. I am sending this letter to this site, hoping that someone that proposes shows for Greek channels will read it and try to do something about this awful situation in Greek TV.
Thank you for your Web site and I hope you win the Hugo Award. You deserve it. Keep up the good work.
Paraskevi Oppio
darkchilde@hol.gr
am writing in response to the awful news that all future Resident Evil games, including updated versions of one through three, as well as the all-new Zero and number four (not the same as Code Veronica), will be exclusive to the Nintendo Game Cube. Also, the future of the Dino Crisis series will be exclusive to the Xbox.
Both of these games are favorites of mine and originally came out for the Playstation. I utterly loath the Nintendo company due to the fact they continually change game cartridges and leave the consumer unable to play [older] games on the new game system. I feel this is nonsense. I love Playstation due to the fact that they seem to sincerely care about their customers as well as their pocket books. I was quite happy about my PS2. Now, as a hardcore RE fan I'm forced to buy a GC. Where is the love for the original fans who have been there from day one?
At least they gave us updated versions of the rest of games we love (Resident Evil one through three). This "exclusive" deal is crap! I'm considering starting a Web page to boycott game companies that switch game formats. Needless to say, I'm immensely displeased.
T.W. Wallace
scribals_75@yahoo.com
t is with great amusement that I read Chad Castagana's letter entitled "SF Has No Space for PC". I found his letter to be a poorly argued mish-mash of vague claims and nonsensical statements. Assuming for a moment that Chad did not intend this as a satire that fell flat—or that I missed the joke—let's take a look at what he wrote.
I would agree with Chad that SF in the '90s was dominated by several cliches that grew increasingly irksome to see repeated seemingly every other day. That being said, SF has abounded with other cliches for decades—i.e., the helpless beauty who exists in the story only to provide the hero with someone to save, or the physically repulsive aliens who want to conquer Earth for nefarious reasons, etc. The '90s were hardly unique in being dominated by cliches, although I will grant that the cliches have changed.
Chad's description of the works of Rod Serling, Gene Roddenberry and others as "...Left-Wing Innuendo, their anti-American cynicism and fatalism," is laughable. If for no other reason than his failure to offer a single example of any of these traits in the works of the individuals he named. This statement also indicates a staggering lack of understanding about these creations. Star Trek, for example, can be seen as a cultural work that combines two important and closely related strains of thought in U.S. intellectual history: American Exceptionalism and a Sense of Mission.
Chad then raises the hilarity level with even more specious statements. Stating that the "liberal-left" has always worked through the one-way world of television is both inaccurate and dishonest. It's inaccurate if only because the Liberal-Left tradition in the U.S. extends much further back than the 1950s—when television started to have an impact on American life. It's deceitful because it implies that only "Liberal-Left" messages are available on television. (The myth of a liberal domination of television is an urban legend that conservatives like to tell one another while watching The O'Reilly Factor.) Chad's assertion that Liberals and Multiculturalists hate America is also unsupported by any examples. Of course, facts do get in the way of a good polemic.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out a couple of other flaws in Chad's logic in the final paragraph. On the one hand, he states that "The future is not written, the future is unformed." This is of course the reason why they call it the future—it hasn't happened yet. Of course, that's not enough to stop Chad from claiming the future isn't in Canada. How he knows this aspect of the unwritten, unformed future is open to speculation.
The simple fact is that science fiction is like any other genre or "serious entertainment." An open-minded reader or viewer will find a plethora of messages, themes and outlooks in the field that range across the political spectrum. The most significant challenge I find in reading or watching SF today is not in the range of viewpoints expressed, but rather in the quality of the expression itself. Good writers and directors are hard to find regardless of their political bent.
Brian Patterson
brianpatterson72@hotmail.com
s soon as I saw the term "PC" in the headline of Chad Castagana's letter ("SF Has No Space for PC"), I had a pretty good idea of what was going to follow: A half-baked, rambling, knee-jerking political rant by someone who has obviously swallowed a lot of discourse from opinion-mongers like Rush Limbaugh and is now spewing it back up only partially digested. The term "politically correct" used to actually have some meaning and bite many years ago (by the way, it was coined by left-wingers, did you know?) but has recently been so overused that it has lost any real meaning, and serves simply as a convenient label for right-wingers like Chad to slap on any idea that they don't agree with so that they can dismiss it rather than actually examining or discussing in a rational manner. Whenever I hear it used now, I get an image of Donald Sutherland's character at the end of the first Invasion of the Body Snatchers remake, pointing and gargling as he spots a non-pod person. Hiissssss! PC! PC! Hiiiissssss!
Chad likes to talk about some imagined liberal hegemony that controls televised sci-fi, but he and his fellow travelers on right-wing talk radio seem more determined to bludgeon people over the head with their ideas and shout down any sort of reasoned debate than any liberal media mavens that I've heard of. Just read his little "manifesto" in which he apparently is calling for an end to any sort of social criticism or soul-searching in modern science fiction. On a galactic scale, Chad's vision works just fine as long as humanity is in the catbird seat. But if we ever encounter a vastly superior alien race, we'd better hope that their attitudes are closer to those of Star Trek's Federation than Chad's Ayn Randish nonsense or we will be in some serious trouble.
By the way, Chad, your classification of Gene Roddenberry and Rod Serling as "Anti-American" is not just uninformed, in this age of 9/11, it's truly vile. Perhaps you'd better go and report them to John Ashcroft right away! Oh wait, they're dead ... well that won't stop him!
And Chad, there is a group I can recommend that you join, where liberals of any stripe are unwelcome, where moral absolutes are strictly adhered to, and humanism is frowned on as the worst sort of weakness. Of course, the Taliban are a little hard to get hold of nowadays, but you seem like a determined sort. ...
Matt Frey
mattgfrey@aol.com
n his letter/rant "SF Has No Space for PC," Chad Castagana puts on the table simplistic equations that beg illumination. Without offering any substance for his assertions, he posits that televised SF's alleged "Left-wing innuendo" directly equates to "anti-American, anti-mankind
cynicism and fatalism."
I would have been more interested in his notion if he'd bullet-pointed exactly what that means and how it is so. He names Rod Serling, Gene Roddenberry and Rockne O'Bannon in that paragraph, so one can assume that Mr. Castagana has an issue with some content in their respective TV shows, but he fails to tell us what exactly is bugging him. There's something about "politically correct pabulum" and "multicultural indoctrination," but we're left scratching our heads wondering what he's on about.
He proposes a "new sci-fi anthology" with some sort of vague and largely indecipherable agenda that seems to include a philosophical vendetta against time travel stories. A further spurious equation comes when he hails the depiction of "a cosmos not governed by compassion or tolerance or equality,
but common sense and merit," as if the first two components are somehow incompatible with the second two. Of course, a currently popular subtext in right-wing A.M. radio in the U.S. promulgates the notion that "common sense and merit" are somehow superior to or crippled by compassion and tolerance,
suggesting that only the compassionless and intolerant possess common sense and merit. Not in my universe, thanks, and not in anything I'd consider palatable for mere TV entertainment.
By suggesting a "universe of strange and totally new lifeforms and not distorted reflections ... just to make some social allegory [from] the insipid barren road of Political Correctness," he advocates precisely what he foams at the mouth against, the only change being social allegories drawn from his own particular political handbook. He beats a drum for replacing some illusory "PC" boogeyman with simply another type of "political correctness" dictating how viewers are "supposed" to think and believe—kind of how the rabid-right have always worked, to borrow his own parenthetical construction.
"The future is not the current events of our world thrown into outer space." Well, of course not. It's storytelling that often, but not exclusively, holds a mirror up to current events, and no one pretends that TV science fiction is magically Predicting The Future. It's just telling stories that, we hope, entertain us. Predicting the future is a mug's game set up for failure by chaotic forces and "diversities" that will always defy simplistic nationalism or tunnel-visioned political breast-beating from any part of the spectrum. To see "indoctrination" in televised SF, or anywhere else, is to see there more power than it possesses while displaying a fearful lack of confidence in the strength and staying power of supposed opposing beliefs.
As for, "The future is not with the Liberals, not with the Multiculturalists (both hate America), and it is certainly not to be found in Canada," there are so many things either laugh-out-loud funny or pathetically sad there that the words themselves trip up rational analysis or understanding. SF and fantasy, especially through the limited funnel of popular television, have understandable appeal to anyone who perceives monsters and threats that exist only under the bed of one's imagination and have no reality in the daylight of our 3-D universe.
Mark Bourne
mbourne@sff.net
hat a fascinating letters column this week! [Warning: Spoilers follow.] In response to Gloria ("Signs Is a Rehashed Ripoff"), in War of the Worlds the Martians died because of bacteria, not water in any form. You're thinking of the Day of the Triffids, where the evil nasty plants are destroyed with salt water.
In response to Chad ("SF Has No Space for PC")—you live in a scary, scary world, my friend. Have you read The Illuminati Trilogy? That series of books should certainly satisfy anyone's desire for conspiracy theory.
There's plenty of fascinating ideas and characters on TV right now. But you have to actively watch it, not just let it passively osmose into your brain. You must ask your questions like "Why is this happening? What are the reasons behind these actions?" As an example (and I'm only using this
because I just saw it), the season finale of Witchblade had a scene where Sara is sitting with Conchobar (who's in a coma) in his hospital room. How many people noticed the speed with which people were moving in the hallway? It's little details like this which show us (as opposed to actors telling us) that there is something happening which the characters may not be aware of and which, if we let them slip by, may reduce our understanding of later actions.
Now I'm off to watch some "left-wing liberal media," which isn't as "left-wing" or "liberal" as one might think.
Rachel Maley
rmaley@cox.net
n response to Gloria Hoffner's letter ("Signs Is a Rehashed Ripoff") calling Signs a "ripoff," wasn't Signs a "new twist" on War of the Worlds? In fact, I found it a far more refreshing take on the concept than films like Independence Day. Now, I'm a huge Spielberg fan, but c'mon, Hook? Original? That's the one Spielberg film I've tried to forget.
I personally loved Signs and can't wait to see what M. Night Shyamalan does next. He's not the next Steven Spielberg, he's this generation's Alfred Hitchcock.
Shannon Potratz
shannon@bassettandbrush.com
aving seen Signs recently, I've had time to mull over some of my
thoughts about the movie. Here's what I think:
I liked the acting and the humorous moments. I didn't find it boring. However, it was full of some odd and illogical (Spock, how I miss you) plot devices:
Warning! Spoilers ahead.
If a bunch of aliens could come clear across the galaxy or several solar systems, how come they have to use crop signs to navigate? Are you telling me that they don't have radar or something? What did those crop signs mean? Stupid, gullible humans here, please land on this spot and consume as many
as you can?
OK, if we're food, isn't there some other planet more conveniently located than ours with carbon-based lifeforms? Hmmm, since scientists say there are probably millions of planets like Earth, then we must be some kind of delicacy for those aliens.
They came all this way for some human snacks—do they have a craving or what? I might drive a couple of miles for a Wendy's hamburger, but millions of miles?
I think [M. Night] Shyamalan's problem is that he has been trying to outdo himself ever since Sixth Sense and each try gets worse and worse. I think Signs is better than Unbreakable but cannot compare (at all) to Sixth Sense.
OK, there. I've had my say. I'm going to duck now just in case some die-hard Shyamalan fan wants to do me in.
Mary S
spacefan@earthlink.net
saw Signs and I loved it. [Warning: Spoilers ahead.] Is life just made up of coincidences or miracles? Perhaps both. Some people believe that it is either one or the other. They believe that it ties in whether or not one believes in the existence of the Almighty or not. If one believes in the Almighty then nothing is random chance. Signs was not just about the crop circles but also other events that take place in people's lives that may not add up to just being coincidences. They may actually serve a purpose at some point in our lives. Imagine that.
Julian Gift
lira-b@tstt.net.tt
his is a response to Mark Kassius ("Obi Wan Is Aging Poorly"), who thought that Obi Wan, as portrayed by Sir Alec Guinness, looked too old to play the Jedi Master given how young Ewan McGregor appeared in Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones. I guess, chronologically, he may have a point and perhaps a continuity lapse. There is also the possibility that enhanced use of Force powers (and exposure to midichlorians) have an adverse impact on human physiology, which would make sense. Think of it like overclocking a graphics card or souping-up a car. As Dr. Tyrell [from Blade Runner] so aptly put it, "The candle that shines twice as bright lasts half as long." Prolonged adherence to the ways of the Jedi may even prolong life, but not youth, condemning Jedi and Sith alike to long lives in desiccated husks of bodies—but those who go over to the dark side are trapped in their all-too human perceptions of love, anger, fear and hate.
Or it could just have been that dang Tatooine climate.
Ari Rottenberg
robynari@earthlink.net
have a few questions about Star Wars: Episode II—Attack of the Clones.... [Warning: Spoilers follow.] Toward the end of the film, Amidala fell in the battle and Anakin wanted to go back and rescue her. Obi Wan talked him out of it because his duty was to help him overcome Dooku, to not let the bad guy get away. Anakin was convinced because
Amidala herself was a child of duty. However, when Yoda was fighting Dooku, he chose to save Obi Wan and Anakin from being crushed, allowing Dooku to escape. ... Where was Yoda's duty? Do Jedi Masters not practice what they preach? Did Obi Wan make up that crap about duty on his own, hoping Amidala would die so she wouldn't distract Anakin any longer? Now that I think about it, wasn't it completely short-sighted of them to make Anakin into Amidala's bodyguard in the first place knowing that he was struggling with his feelings for her? He wasn't even a full Jedi yet. A distracted Jedi
apprentice guarding an important Senator with several attempts on her life already. ... Perhaps Obi Wan wanted Anakin to die as well. He was only reluctantly following Qui-Gon's wishes that he train Anakin anyway, right?
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. That's because I watched it knowing that it wouldn't alter my life or anything. I expected a two-hour distraction and I got an enjoyable one. But I also got a rich tapestry of intriguing plot holes in which to apply my own imaginary conspiracies. ... That just adds to the enjoyment!
Mark Kassius
kassius@peoplepc.com
s someone with athetoid cerebral palsy, I would like to echo Mike Murphy's sentiments ("Conventions Can't Be Replaced"). People like us tend to be shut in much of the time. So we read books to take us out of our environment, which can become tedious at times. Conventions give us a chance to meet new people, and catch up with old friends ("Worldcons Future, Worldcons Past"). Sitting at a monitor and typing is not equivalent to meeting another human being face to face.
John Nolan
roninja@bcpl.net
would like to say that I have hoped all summer that I would hear that some
network had stepped up and would be bringing Dark Angel back on this fall. It is by far one of the best shows to ever air. The characters were real and the story lines great.
Sci-fi does not get the recognition it deserves. Look at Roswell—canceled, Wolf Lake—canceled, First Wave (a primo sci-fi show)—canceled, X-Files—canceled. Thank heaven Stargate was picked up by the SCI FI Channel.
Deborah Ferguson
deborah@hm-cs.com
ear people: While Brian L. Miller's assertion ("Star Trek's Directive Isn't Real") that Star Trek's Prime Directive "ain't real" is true enough, neither is most SF (the "F" does stand for "fiction" after all). However, the core concept of the Directive, that of non-interference in other cultures, serves a cautionary purpose in current world affairs. For example, if we had not gone to Viet Nam in the late '60s (as the French had warned us not to do), we would have avoided massive casualties. This example is paralleled by the Dominion War in Star Trek: DS9, where various (fictional) Gamma Quadrant races warned the Federation not to mess with the Dominion. In both examples, we (Americans and Federation) refused to listen and got ourselves thoroughly swatted by the other side. The same thing happened in Trek's first series with the Romulans, Klingons and others; in Star Trek: The Next Generation with the Cardassians and the Borg; in Star Trek: Voyager with Species 8472, the Hirogen and the Borg; and currently with the Andorians and the Suliban on Enterprise.
So you see, Mr. Miller, although the Directive is intended as a creation for entertainment purposes, it still has validity enough to teach us where we go right and wrong in reality. Don't be so quick to dismiss a lesson just because it isn't painted as one.
Henrik Harbin
kirneh1@cox.net
Back to the top.
