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 send a message to scifiweekly@scifi.com.
hat is up with Hollywood? I just read (in your News of the Week section, no less) that Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of Ron Howard) is being cast as Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3 ("Howard's Gwen In Spidey III"). Now, let me get this straight: They cast a blonde (Kirsten Dunst) to play redhead Mary Jane Watson, and a redhead (Howard) to play blonde Gwen Stacy. Now, I usually have no problem with actors dyeing their hair for a role, especially when that actor is perfect for the role and the role requires a different color hair than what is their natural color.
But, to be perfectly honest, I didn't really care for Dunst as MJ anyway. Anybody who read the Spider-Man comics knows that MJ is supposed to be this drop-dead gorgeous supermodel-turned-actress. Now, as pretty as Ms. Dunst is, I don't find her supermodel material, but that's me. I'm not saying there wasn't good chemistry between her and Toby Maguire or that the movie was less than spectacular, I just thought they could have gotten a much more beautiful MJ.
Now it seems they are going to be pulling the same stunt with Gwen Stacy. Ms. Howard was the lead in M. Night Shyamalan's The Village (the kinda cute blind girl). Again they chose another pretty girl ... pretty, not exceptionally beautiful, as depicted in the comics.
Yes, I know in comics almost all females are drawn exceptionally gorgeous, but when in almost every issue every other guy is either thinking or saying, "How does a guy like him end up with a girl like her?" referring to Peter Parker and either Gwen or MJ, you know the girls are expected to be a hell of a lot more than just pretty.
I don't know, maybe it's just me. Now I'm sure I will love Spider-Man 3 as much as I did the first two, but I will be thinking in the back of my mind throughout the whole movie "She should be so much hotter"!
Robert Miller
visefx3d(at)yahoo.com
always enjoy John Clute's erudite and thought-provoking reviews, but in his recent review of Tim Lebbon's Dusk he doesn't do justice to a signal contribution by a wonderful fantasy writer. Clute argues that J.R.R. Tolkien's map of Middle-earth was "the first Land Map to be widely influential on other writers." Not so! The map in Defoe's Robinson Crusoe had some influence on later writers, but the most influential map on contemporary works of SF and fantasy was that of Robert Louis Stevenson for Treasure Island. This stirred the creative fire of H. Rider Haggard, and his notable fold-out map for King Solomon's Mines was adopted by succeeding writers in various ways; fold-out maps of imaginary worlds became common in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Haggard was fondly remembered by Tolkien, who rarely acknowledged the influence of other authors on his legendarium.
Michael Saler
mtsaler(at)aol.com
Columnist John Clute responds:
Thanks, Michael Saler, for clearing up a slovenly bit of writing on my part. Failing to trace back provenance on something like this is the sort of thing I excoriate in others. What I should have restricted myself to saying was simply that because of Tolkien's enormous overall influence his map, both as an abstract example and in terms of its specific iconography, influenced later writers—without making it look as though I thought maps had never existed before J.R.R. So it goes.
Terry Bisson dropped me a message privately making the same point, though he instanced L. Frank Baum's map of Oz. So it goes.
The final version of the novel arrived on my desk a day after my review went up. Unlike the proof from which I worked (and which led me to a false hope), the final text has a map. It is awful. So it goes.
Best,
John
take exception to the letter by Michael Anthony Basil ("Lost Stars Were Irresponsible") and must come to the defense of the Lost stars who were arrested for drunk driving. First let me say that drunk driving is a foolish, selfish and irresponsible activity that should be punished and severely if innocent lives are taken as a result of it.
But in defense of these Lost stars, let me say that this type of self-absorbed, hedonist, throw-all-caution-to-the-wind and enjoy-"my"-life-and-fame-at-the-expense-of-anyone-else [behavior] is perfectly normal, expected and encouraged by Hollywood. The mistake Mr. Basil makes is in attempting to believe the hype about movie stars as being better than normal people, that these people should be put in the news or read about in tabloids and that their lives have essentially greater value and worth as human beings than the rest of us.
The truth is that movie stars and Hollywood celebrities are the greatest bunch of childish, immature, narcissist idols the world has ever pedestalized. They are glorified for no greater reason than Hollywood corporations have decided this is the way it will be.
To look to them for leadership or as an example for morals is the epitome of foolishness. Instead we can thank these Lost stars for proving once again that movie stars are the poster children for failure as "real" human beings.
Take a lesson, fans: Enjoy their acting, but never confuse an artist with their art.
Steven Norquist
nordattack(at)nethere.com
am overcome with joy and happiness that [the SCI FI Channel] going to carry the Doctor Who series. Last summer, I contacted the BBC to inquire if any North American channels would pick
up this series. All my heartfelt thanks for carrying the Doctor and companions. Us Doctor Who fans will not suffer in silence anymore. And remember, one letter written represents one thousand letters that weren't written by those who didn't take or have the time to write. Please multiply this letter by a gazillion! Thanks again!
Marie Nutter
nanutshell4u(at)peoplepc.com
nce again we lose a good show due to the foolishness of network TV executives and narrow-minded, right-wing types who pressured them. The amusing part is, if a zealot actually watched [The Book of Daniel] they would see there's little to complain about.
Granted, there are some characters who may be offensive to certain types ... but the Bible is as well.
As far as the complaint that Jesus is talking to a pill popper ... well, doesn't he walk with us all, if that's really your faith?
I personally see his vision as his id or conscience ... but the show works for whatever side of the faith issue you fall on. I would bet these same folks who cry foul of The Book of Daniel are gleefully watching Desperate Housewives or any other daily soap.
What again seems to infuriate these types is the exact thing they complain is lacking on TV: a show that has a character struggling to keep faith when all around him is testing that faith, much like the life of the guy in the robes who talks to the priest. Much like Threshold we are forced to watch an Internet version ... so unless somebody wakes up, it will also vanish.
As the wise Homer Simpson once said, "Save me, Jeebus!"
Mike Kromski
[address withheld by request]
t's a tad ironic that a channel devoted to science fiction, featuring many shows that inspire the dreams of what technology will be like someday, uses low technology. If you haven't noticed, HD sets have crossed below the $1,000 threshold and are booming in terms of overall sales. The argument that the market isn't there yet is simply no longer true. If there was ever an opportunity to lure new viewers, it would be by being a leader in this technological revolution, not a follower. Watching dream technology on high technology (HD) really makes a lot of sense. The market will respond. It's a shame [SCI FI hasn't] figured that out.
Matt Gordon
mgordon(at)gctele.com
hate beating animals to death (and beyond) and so, I will not cover this subject here again. Let us say that I disagree with J.G. te Molder ("Firefly Makes No Sense") and him with me. To argue further is pointless, particularly in such a public forum where other, more interesting ideas can be discussed. I find Serenity to be consistent, he doesn't. I don't actually think of it as science fiction—on which I believe we agree—but more as science fantasy. However, I find it less-so Sci-Fan than Battlestar Galactica's current incarnation, but more so than Babylon 5. Even more, I don't care if someone wants to label it science fiction. If that is their perception and they enjoy it, more power to them. The distinctions are dubious at best.
I do want to repeat some of my questions without answering them, for all to ponder:
When did the definition of science fiction narrow to that which is speculatively possible in light of current given facts about the universe?
"Why does it matter what you call it as long as it is good entertainment?"
An effort to move the discussion away from Firefly into a general trend was made, but we seem to always come back to Firefly, and, as a result, I always come back to story, at which this series excelled. J.G. te Molder seems to come back to cattle and slug-throwing weaponry. Each to his own area of interest, I say.
No matter which genre you write in, you are making Myth in some form or another: If it is a disaffected youth prowling through New York City looking for a little truth in his life, a god seeking his place on a strange, new world, or a boy and his dog traveling in an apocalyptic waste, in all cases, they must remain internally consistent and tell us something about our humanity. If it does these two things, regardless of what you or anyone else wants to call it, I will call it good fiction. In addition, rather than use arbitrary genre labels to describe it, I will use the simple rules of "internally consistent" and "tells me something about humanity" as my measuring rod.
Dirk Griffin
dirk.griffin@insightbb.com
he current debate in Science Fiction Weekly's Letters column is interesting, and, of course, we have been here before. I am fairly certain that the range of speculative fiction from hard SF through to fantasy will continue.
Both ends of this spectrum have much to offer. However in terms of science and SF, the evidence (from surveys and consumer polls) over the years, though scant, does suggest a couple of things.
1) Fantasy and SF fans are distinct markets but with significant customer overlap.
2) SF, as a genre, promulgated in our society, does not improve public understanding of science.
3) SF does improve public appreciation of, and an interest in, science.
Keep up the good work.
Jonathan Cowie
info(at)concatenation.org
n response to Henrik Harbin's suggestions ("Jackson Would Be a Wiz of a Wiz") about a new film adaptation of Baum's Wonderful Wizard of Oz, I have a few suggestions and reservations.
I love the Oz books and always have, and much as I love PJ's work, I strongly believe that Oz is a uniquely American piece and should only be made by an American filmmaker. Hopefully this would also mean setting the film in the late 1800s/1900 where it should be (unlike every film version which has modernized it). However, I think doing a new version would be smart, as I think the story deserves the modern techniques and the public deserves the schooling in what Baum's Oz really was. Surprisingly, one of the most accurate Oz films was the recent Muppet version. What with Gregory Maguire's work in print (and now adapted for stage), the MGM tamperings have become engrained in the minds of the hoi polloi as the gospel truth. They aren't. No witches are green in Oz. Glinda is the witch of the South (and Harbin, who claims to have read the book, should know that). The Munchkins are not little people.
Now, as to Mr. Harbin's other suggestions:
I'm not sure I trust Harlan Ellison with the story, but I'd be open to see how his first draft would come out.
Hallie Eisenberg is definitely too old now for Dorothy (at least at the time of the first book). Good thought, though. This also opens the question of whose illustrations we base Oz on, as the original Dorothy was a little pudgy and a brunette, while all of John R. Neill's illustrations place Dorothy as a blonde. ... Could drop the name of Dakota Fanning, though that seems obvious, and I don't know that she's quite right for Dorothy.
Brent Spiner is a great choice for the scarecrow, though I don't think he wants a role with that sort of makeup requirement ever again. Will Ferrell wouldn't be bad. It needs to be someone with both acting chops and comedic charm.
The Lion is hard to cast; Robin Williams would ham it up too much, and Connery is too old for it. What about Bill Shatner?
Natalie Portman is so not right for Glinda (who, again, is witch of the South). Glinda is the most powerful woman in all Oz, and needs to be played by someone older. I sort of don't think even Naomi Watts could do it right. She needs to exude a maturity as well as beauty. Though Portman might be good as Jellia Jamb if they ever did the second book.
Maggie Smith or Judi Dench seem too obvious for the wicked witch of the west, but not bad.
At first reading, I thought De Niro was ridiculous as a choice for the Wizard, but a split second later I could totally see it! He even sort of looks the part. Great thought!!
I, too, would love to see the entire book adapted (so we could see the Quadling country and the people made of glass and all). It is an area of the book that no one knows and is very surprised to learn of. Still, I worry that any adaptation would cut it as unimportant (especially PJ, which is another reason he shouldn't do it). If the ones responsible would see that the book is about Dorothy going home, not about going to see the Wizard, that might be possible. Oh, and none of it is a dream!
The wheels are turning in my head now too. I am finally getting to finish reading Baum's original 14 books, and wish there were more movies. The Lost Princess of Oz is one of the best, and I would love to see it onscreen.
Oh, and if anyone else is interested in Oz on film, try to track down a copy of the silent The Patchwork Girl of Oz. It's been called, by some, one of the earliest American fantasy films, and is just fun to watch (particularly the Woozy, and the fact that Baum was responsible for it himself).
Jon Baril
TrekBeatTK(at)aol.com
Back to the top.
