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.
ave we sci-fi fans become "awfully jaded" in the still "brand-spanking-new millennium?" Did we all look at the "state-of-the-art, bullet-time effects of The Matrix Reloaded and yawn"? ("Give 'Em the Old Razzle-Dazzle")
What does turn us on? "The element of something new and unknown"? "Something larger, something louder, something just a little bit more impossible"?
The visit to the Dime Museum was interesting, but hardly touched on what some of our ancestors called "entertainment."
Before any millennium, the Romans saw scores of gladiators fight to the death, Christians devoured by lions, even pitched naval battles when the coliseum was filled with water soon tainted with blood. Yes, that got old after a while.
How many public executions could one go to before "Been there. Done that" set in? Hangings, burnings, beheadings, firing squads? After you've seen one, haven't you seen them all? Or "Have we developed some strange sort of attention-deficit disorder of the soul?"
It's been a long time coming. The first movie theaters were hastily erected tents and the first grainy moving images—of a train pulling into a station and the tide coming in—sent some customers fleeing for their lives, fearing they'd be run over or drowned.
When the 1931 Frankenstein premiered, theater owners had ambulances standing by, afraid that the sight of Boris Karloff in Jack Pierce's monster make-up would cause heart attacks. (All survived.)
Perhaps the strangest film reaction of all came in 1941 as Nazi armies were advancing into the Soviet Union. Playing in Moscow was The Thief of Baghdad starring Sabu. In the scene when Abu tricks the giant genie into granting him three wishes, he first requests "sausages like grandmother used to make." At the sight of the genie-created wieners sizzling in a pan, the starving Russians rioted!
And we're yawning at Matrix Reloaded?
Of course we are! Because it might be bigger and louder, but it's no longer new.
In sci-fi, characters time travel. What if movies had? Imagine, nearly a half century ago, after plunking down 35 cents to see I Was a Teenage Werewolf or Robot Monster and instead seeing T3: Rise of the Machine or Freddy vs. Jason. Would we be "jaded" to this day?
I refuse to believe that. Beyond sight and sound, we're searching for something that makes us feel. It all comes back to the human experience. In a way, F/X is not unlike sex: for all the hype and hoopla both receive, neither lasts unless it means something. Give us a fresh idea on what it means to be a human being in the universe and we will emote with all our heart.
Humanity is the special effect. Let us hope it always will be.
Kevin Ahearn
KEVTOMA@aol.com
he Matrix Reloaded wishes it could be more. It is no longer content with having set the benchmark with special effects; it wants to be a deep, involved story which says something.
It wishes it was Dune.
Unfortunately, it lacks the depth of plot or characters to be anything more than eye candy, and in its attempts to be something more, it is seriously lacking.
The dialogue, rather than helping the story, simply bogs it down. Keanu [Reeves'] attempts to act are laughable, and the "philosophy" of the movie is something they found off the back of a cereal box.
The Matrix is eye candy—nothing more and nothing less.
Liz
vaya_lorann@yahoo.com
ecently, I have largely stopped reading sci-fi, as well as watching it on TV and in the movies. The reasons for this are varied, but largely hinge on how forgettable I find modern sci-fi to be. Gone is the magic of the "giant tripods" beaming death that Wells brought us from Mars, gone is the bright glow of imagination and the context of new ideas.
Sci-fi books are now something over $7 a pop for a paperback that can seldom even hold your attention as the writer rambles on trying to get as many words in as possible while forgetting what is wanted is imagination and adventure. I once would read three or four sci-fi books a week in the '70s and '80s when they were between .95 and $5, as well as a couple of technical books for good measure. Today, between the higher prices and totally forgettable content, I seldom will buy a sci-fi book unless I know the author is one I enjoy reading. Yes, a lot of the ones I read then were also poorly written or junk, but from time to time you would find a gem. Although I can't speak for other fans, it's been a long time since I have unearthed such a gem.
Television and movies are much the same, offering little for us to consider or think about. Instead they substitute T&A, and how much bounce they can bring to a show. The television and movie media have become a vast wasteland of political correctness and gratuitous sex and violence.
Although sci-fi has always had the scantily clad damsel menaced by the BEM (bug-eyed monster), it also often contained a certain depth and attitude missing in the other writing domains. Sci-fi was one of the few mediums that would challenge the dominant ideas and politics of its time; today that challenge seems totally missing as it embraces the more liberal values, forgetting that for every action a consequence results. If you read or watch a sci-fi show today, you will find little more than a detective show, doctor show or soap opera. The only thing different being the detective might be a robot, or the doctor works on a starship or the woman having an affair is doing it on a moon!
(Forgettable is an understatement, come to think of it.) Sci-fi only works for me now if the show is one that is fun ... i.e., doesn't take itself too seriously. I like shows like Tremors, Stargate SG-1, etc., because they entertain. I honestly think that most writers today are no longer able to write scripts for shows like Babylon 5 (a gem), the old Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits (new or old).
Perhaps we should consider reversing the political correctness and look at ideas we don't like for shows and books. Like a show where the hero is the fascist, communist or socialist and the villain is a democracy run amok. Or a culture where humans are a small and unimportant minority trying to fit into a culture totally repugnant to them. Perhaps it's time we stopped looking at what is accepted and acceptable as truth and started looking for alternate paths, ideas and possibilities.
I still remember how when I got Dune, (the book), I could not put it down, reading till my eyes blurred and burned as I flipped from page to page. Somewhere along the way we have lost that magic in the words, and with that loss we are losing this generation of sci-fi fans; and the
wonders, which only the truly creative and talented storytellers can bring us.
D. Grizz
d_grizz00@hotmail.com
n the May 26th issue, Dave Campanas states in his "Sturgeon's Law Still Applies" letter: "Sure, there's a lot of Star Wars/Trek/Babylon/Buffy crap, but this is
hardly a new phenomenon."
It seems that your point is that the glut of tie-in books represent the 90 percent in Sturgeon's Law. I just can't see how you can put the recent Babylon 5 books in that group. The Shadow Within and To Dream in the City of Sorrows from the original Dell series, and especially the last three Babylon 5 trilogies: Psi Corps trilogy by J. Gregory Keyes,
Centauri trilogy by Peter David and Technomage trilogy by Jeanne Cavelos ... are pretty good. While I somewhat disliked Jeanne Cavelos' writing style in The Shadow Within (e.g. the tennis match between the A and B threads), it and the other books that I listed above are approximately 90 percent "canon" and are valuable additions to the Babylon 5 universe. Just because a book's a tie-in, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's crap.
Also, compared to the Star Wars, Star Trek and Buffy books, finding Babylon 5 books in my local Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc., is like looking for a needle in a haystack. It's rare that there are more than a few Babylon 5 titles on the shelf, yet there are entire shelving units filled with Star Wars, Star Trek and Buffy books.
Mac Breck
macbreck@access995.com
was intrigued by Pashda Remenay's letter ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer Had Vision"), which suggested that fantasy is slowly dying out, and one day there will be nothing left to watch at all. From this side of the Atlantic, it seems the other way around to me, but sadly not in a good way.
Instead of innovation, we are bludgeoned by endless reruns, or more of the same sub-standard drivel from the usual purveyors of what I'll call SF scatology. There is no room for shows chock full of wow, such as Prey, Brimstone or Crusade. Even the creators of past greats have lost the plot. For example, the last thing any Babylon 5 fan wanted to see was J. Michael Straczynski does Star Trek/Andromeda, which was all the Legend of the Rangers really amounted to. How could that have come from the mind of the man who imagineered the Vorlons, Shadows, Citizen G'Kar, Londo Mollari and Za'Ha'Dum?
Then there's the ultimate in unreality TV, the news. On the hour, every hour, we are fed a stream of babble and flat-out fantasy. All aimed at keeping us so scared we dare not think for ourselves. Then when yesterday's breaking news is found to be false, (and it can't be covered up), we're supposed to forget about it. Tune in, turn on and drop out of thought mode. Watch what the powers that be see fit to provide, and be grateful for that small freedom. Want more? What are you, some kind of terrorist? It's like McTrek for the masses, a diet of mind rot that will kill your brain. But hey, the good news is that once it happens, you'll love Enterprise.
Nathan Brazil
nathanbrazil@freeuk.com
agree with Bruce Morton's comments about wanting to see more "alien"
aliens ("Science Fiction Needs Alien Aliens"). The only time I've ever seen a person descended from birds was a tragic sort of character on Buck Rogers of the 25th Century, second season. Why has Star Trek never had a seating problem with people with
backwards-bending knees? How would a human speak to an alien that trumpets its words through a nose-tube that runs up its face like some dinosaurs had? Earth has a whole gamut of strange animals, both alive and extinct, that could be the basis of an interesting alien race.
Then there's the matter of physical differences. Humans can perceive images as being moving images when they are projected at a certain speed per second. Does this mean that all aliens can watch TV too and not get a terrible headache from the flicker? Some aliens might not see the pictures at all! Are all aliens "sight" creatures like humans are? Could there be an alien race that depends more upon their noses? How could a human relate to an alien that speaks of smells, not of sights?
Which brings me to technological differences. Why are all alien devices compatible with human ones? What if the aliens are running something really bizarre that just doesn't compute with human tech and can't be modified in any way? Some races may never have developed "user friendly" systems. How long would it take to tell a starship to lift off if it was operated by analog computers? Actually, our own Apollo space craft were operated by such computers. The astronauts had to tell the craft to do each and every thing in the correct order. It was not pre-programmable, and was very, very stupid software. Who says that aliens advanced farther than this in their travels?
I guess it all comes down to how much the producer wants to spend on an episode. Making an "alien" alien costs more, even if it is just having an alien that can't see moving pictures at the same speed as a human. Or wants to taste everything because that's how it learns things. How sad.
Jandl Ray
cookies5@sbcglobal.net
fter reading some of the letters about what is good/bad/crap etc., ("Sturgeon's Law Still Applies", "Good SF Is Out There") I keep thinking to myself, who are these people. Why the superior attitudes? What is science fiction? Fantasy? Horror, whatever. I say, who cares.
Are you enjoying reading it? Is it entertaining to you? Could you not put it down? Did you enjoy watching it? Yes, I agree this reality stuff is really annoying, but someone out there likes it.
I have read almost all of the authors that were mentioned and some of them I couldn't stand and others I thought were great. My taste runs from the sublime to the crap and I enjoy all of it. Having it all out there to read or see is what makes it all worthwhile.
Janis Moore
mooreja@saccounty.net
hen I read the letters of late lamenting the poor quality of science
fiction ("Sturgeon's Law Still Applies", "Good SF Is Out There"), I'm reminded of a definition of science fiction I once read but for the life of me can't remember whom to credit.
"The central theme of science fiction is the defense or restoration of freedom involving an as yet to be discovered technology."
At first glance that definition is pretty lame. Some fans are insulted by its simplicity. There are two reasons why it took me many years to accept that definition.
The first reason was that so many of the novels, movies and TV shows that I thought were science fiction didn't fit the definition, so the definition must have been flawed. For example, Star Trek, the 1960s TV series, had a central theme in direct opposition to the definition: to explore strange new worlds. Out of the gate, Capt. Kirk and the Enterprise were free to roam the galaxy. They rarely defended anything.
The second reason is that my intellectual interest are societal evolution and new technology. If the defense or restoration of freedom happens to be the core theme, I really don't care. Take Blade Runner for example. It fits the definition on every level. Deckard wants to be free of his blade-running life. Roy Batty wants to be free of his
genetic time bomb so he can live longer. Rachel wants to be free of her implanted memories so she can feel like an authentic woman. All I see when I watch the movie is a cyber chic world where I can buy my own pleasure replicant and a flying car, or just "Get away to the outer colonies!" There's that freedom theme again.
From the Blade Runner example, it's clear that the defense or restoration of freedom doesn't have to mean thwarting an alien invasion, vis-a-vis Independence Day. The definition allows for a wide range of plots and character quests, while remaining true to the definition.
I mentioned enjoying a good sci-fi tale even though I was unaware that the theme was the defense or restoration of freedom. I think the freedom-technology theme can be subtle, yet retain the power of such a simple message. It's the power of that message that moves me emotionally, even while the technology and study of societal evolution entertains my eyes, stimulates my intellect, and peaks my lust for android babes programmed to do my bidding.
It's when contemporary stories depart from the definition that you get all manner of sub genres. People argue that Frankenstein by Mary Shelly was the first science-fiction novel. Jules Verne is also credited with some of the earliest science fiction for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Yet these couldn't have been science fiction because the genre had not been defined that early. Furthermore, the theme of these stories centered on technology itself, and the evils thereof, stemming from both excitement and fear of the potential posed by the industrial revolution. Those stories certainly used futuristic technology for plot purposes, and they certainly were fiction. But those stories merely planted the seeds of science fiction, rather than launch the genre.
Even War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, which has been called the "prototype for science fiction" was not dubbed science fiction in its day and it did not kick start an industry. What it did do was introduce the impending loss of freedom as a central theme for a scientifically charged novel. That influence is unmistakable in the works by authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction, who found the audience to build the sci-fi industry among the xenophobic population of the late 1930s, '40s, '50s. Authors of that time tapped the deeply rooted fear of the mechanized armies of the Nazi's and the alien facial features of the Japanese. It's no wonder the Roswell alien archetype looks oriental. Certainly fans of Golden Age science fiction loved the ray guns, rocket ships and galactic princesses, but the hero's quest in the most popular books was almost always defense of the planet or escape from his particular form of bondage, or delivering a hapless race from tyrannical masters.
By the 1960's, we had the cold war, which continued to fuel the industry because people feared the loss of personal identity at the hands of bug-like Communism. The core of science fiction held up, which is why Star Trek bombed. It was too soon to alter the theme of science fiction from defending freedom to "boldly go where no man has gone before."
I'm not saying science fiction can't incorporate other story elements, like discovery for the sake of adventure. I'm saying that if science fiction doesn't honor a core theme, like a murder mystery faithfully uncovers who did it, like a love story always tugs the heartstrings, like a comedy always gets a laugh, science fiction will continue to be the abused stepdaughter of the entertainment industry.
Kent Roller
kent@islandnetworksolutions.com
just want to say that if Stargate SG-1 becomes Stargate: Daniel Jackson, I will not be tuning in. I am not happy with the return of the character of Daniel Jackson. The character's time had come and gone. The character of Jonas Quinn was a much better character, adding a freshness to the show that was long missing.
As to the belief by some that the character of Daniel Jackson was the "heart and soul" of the team, I only have to say this: I certainly hope he wasn't! That would mean that the team had no heart or soul, only a self-centered moral ambiguity at the center of it. Daniel had no real cares about his team, only about what he thought was right or correct. Point in fact came in an episode from the first season, "Broca Divide." In this episode the character was perfectly willing to allow a young woman to be raped because it was part of that society's "culture." Later, in the season-five episode, "Beast of Burden," Daniel uses what I term as "selective morality." He gives an Unas a weapon to use against those that enslaved him. So, he won't interfere with one culture, but will with another? Amazing what some think of as the heart and soul. I think that most of these "Daniel is the heart and soul of the team" people are more interested in the cuteness of Mr. Shanks the actor, and they allow that to affect their opinions of the character.
Karen Cafaro
Cafaro1@msn.com
n response to the orginial Star Trek series and sexcapades ("Star Trek Has Always Used Sex", "Roddenberry Was Badgered by Censors", "Original Star Trek Sold Sex"), Capt. Kirk was in almost every other episode a good-will ambassador—to female species all over the universe. I consider him as the "intergalatic player extraordinaire"! Kirk got the girls, Spock was the voice of reason and ol' Bones was always there with a cure (shot) and a whimsical balance. I prefer the older shows,
because you had to be wise and paying attention to catch all the hidden innuendos, as in contrast to shows today, where it's all about visual stimulation.
Audrey King
akingslifetime@yahoo.com
will refrain from commenting on how bad I think this final season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was. I will refrain from commenting on the poor characterization and illogical, not to mention boring, "plots." I will refrain from commenting on the usage of not one, not two, but three dei ex machina in the final few episodes of the season. I have discussed my opinions on several other forums and I don't wish to rehash them here. But what I do want to know is this: In
what way is the final episode of Buffy supposed to be about female empowerment?
[Warning: Spoilers follow.]
I have seen this statement bandied about by not only those involved with producing the show, but also by viewers, such as the letter from Barbara Goldstein ("Buffy Receives Standing Ovation", 5/27/03). But I just don't see it.
Let's look at what actually happened in the finale: Angel (a man) brings a superspecial amulet to Buffy. Said amulet is worn by Spike (a man) and with it he saves the day. Key phrase there: "he saves the day." Despite the valiant effort of Buffy and her Slayerette crew, they were losing. Even after Willow's spell gave them (and all the potentials around the world) the full measure of Slayer power, they were losing. Several of the girls were killed. Buffy was nearly killed herself. Several of the ubervamps had already made it to the surface and more were sure to follow. Of all the humans above, only Anya (a woman) was killed. The only thing that saved them
all was Spike and his magic amulet. He (granted, not that he had much of a choice) killed all of the ubervamps; he began the process of destroying the Hellmouth; he sacrificed himself so that Buffy could get out alive. To recap: amulet from a man, amulet worn by a man, girls getting their butts kicked, man saves the day.
Where is the "girl power" in all of that?
Patrick Wynne
pat_wynne@yahoo.com
Back to the top.
