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.
found your address on the "Save Enterprise" board. I am deeply concerned with the nature of this campaign, as well as [those of] Farscape and Angel. My concern is with the money collection—it's not necessarily the collection, as it is the idea that we can't live
without a certain television program.
Have we become so obsessed with entertainment, so in-drawn by characters we see on TV that we are willing to give our hard-earned money to continue what could be termed as an obsession or possibly even an addiction?
And since when did we become smarter than the TV executives? While Nielsen ratings may underestimate a fanbase, ultimately stock holders, corporate boards and senior management choose leadership for these companies on the ability to make sound business decisions. Since when did the power go from the people hired to do the job, to a group of fans with money in their hands?
Ron Hall
daytimecareycat(at)yahoo.com
eading through this week's sci-fi news, this caught my eye ("Paramount Refused Fan Money"):
Trek United has raised nearly $3.14 million in pledges and contributions from fans eager to finance a fifth season of Enterprise, and McCallie said that donors are promised their money back if the show doesn't come back, "except for the 5 percent handling fee to cover the banks and Paypal and all that kind of stuff."
Given the amount of money raised, I realized that the exact costs are really important. Imagine, there would be thousands of dollars in one percentage point of difference.
I suggest that donors insist on an independent auditing firm to oversee the funds, even if it costs them an extra buck each. Given the amount collected, we're already talking in the hundred-thousand dollar range, as the stated percentage.
I am not trying to accuse anyone of a crime. Being a bookkeeper, I was simply concerned after reading the passage and the phrase "all that kind of stuff" that perhaps the monetary arrangements were a little vague. Expert handling can save everyone grief down the road, including the organizers, and bring peace of mind.
I might also suggest that if talks to do the show don't pan out, they might consider asking the donors if publishing would be acceptable to them. One can either pay established writers to write them or use the money for a contest for first-time writers that results in a published book. Perhaps Paramount might be more open to this idea.
Tapati Sarasvati McDaniels
[address withheld by request]
think my biggest problem with Star Trek at this point is simple burn-out. There's just too damn much Trek out there for any fan to keep up. Let the franchise rest a little while before you even attempt to revive it again. Let the fans build up some anticipation. Say what you will about George Lucas, he's figured out how to make the release of each new Star Wars film into a major event. In that respect, Paramount could take a page from his book.
Another suggestion would be to open up the process a little. Let some folks from outside the Trek franchise have a go at creating a series. Aaron Sorkin? Dick Wolf? Steven Bochco, anyone?
Heck! Why not just have a fan contest? Send in either a completed screenplay or a series bible (or both) for the next Trek series. The only catch is that it's got to be original. It can't just be recycled characters and plots from previous shows. (And it has to be more than just you and your friends boppin' around the galaxy in a starship. Only really talented writers can ever get away with that kind of stuff.)
Finally, to Paramount: If you're really serious about wanting to do something "new" and "different," then have the courage to actually pick something "new" and "different" and go with it!
Brian Hendrickson
splunge(at)swbell.net
was pleased to see Moonstruck reviewed this week at Science Fiction Weekly. The opening summary was excellent, discussing the main tensions of the novel without giving away any plot twists (I wish other reviewers were as skilled). The comparison to Heinlein and Campbell was certainly satisfying.
While there were obviously items on which we differ (in particular, how much science discovery to show onstage), I appreciate your balanced and professional review.
Edward M. Lerner
e_lerner(at)yahoo.com
inally, years after its short run on TNT, I finally have been able to watch J. Michael Straczynski's ill-fated Crusade in its unedited glory on DVD. Over the years, I managed to catch one or two episodes on TNT and one or two on the SCI FI Channel, but the series was an overall mystery to me.
Don't get me wrong: I knew the premise of the series and I knew its fate before it even aired, due to the well-documented battles over the fate of the series. A promised five-year series with potential equal to Babylon 5 cut down to a "13-episode limited series." I was as dismayed as thousands of others.
Then, the DVD was released and while I waited to finish my Babylon 5 collection first, I finally sat down and watched Crusade from beginning to end.
From the outset, it was obvious that TNT had seriously curtailed spending. While some scenes were gleaned from the pilot movie A Call To Arms, several scenes featured what appeared to be cheap models, not the CGI glory I was accustomed to from Babylon 5. The battle scene in the first episode is comparable to battle scenes in the deplorable Andromeda. Instead of the widescreen format that Straczynski favored throughout Babylon 5, the series was filmed in full screen.
Yet ... yet ... the stories were still gripping, engrossing, wonderful science fiction. This is the series that people should still be crying out about. The tale of the Excalibur, searching for a cure to the Drakh plague that threatens to destroy all life on Earth.
Yes, there was outcry when the series was canceled, but nowhere near the scream unleashed when Enterprise was recently canceled. I still wonder why the show wasn't syndicated, like four of the five seasons of Babylon 5, but the point is now moot.
While the show only lasted 13 episodes, it's likely the best "limited-run series" out there, even though there is no ending.
Buy it ... watch it ... weep.
Keith Kitchen
boyoklaatu1(at)aol.com
have to agree with W.R. White's letter ("Doctor Who Needs U.S. Champion") in which he states that the new Doctor Who series is top notch. I've only seen the first two episodes myself, though I do have the third on tape and just need to sit down and watch it, and I'd have to say that the new series is a worthy successor to the old. We have the same strong characters and good writing that characterized the old series coupled with much-improved special effects. I'm definitely planning on following this series for as long as it airs.
White also upbraids SCI FI for their "shortsightedness at not picking up the series for broadcast in the United States." First of all, while the series is not technically on the air in the USA, those of us fortunate enough to live within broadcast range (or whose cable companies include the channel) of CBC in Canada have been able to watch the series Tuesday nights (8 p.m. Eastern) since the beginning of April. Secondly, has SCI FI ever investigated picking up Doctor Who? I can't believe they haven't at least idly considered the possibility. As far as I know, the entire series is available from the BBC—many years ago when I lived near
Toledo, Ohio the Toledo PBS station started airing the series from the beginning ... this would have been in 1988 or so. Clearly the older episodes are available, and if the newer ones aren't yet I'm sure it's just a matter of time. Perhaps the BBC wanted more money than SCI FI felt the series was worth? Or perhaps the BBC prefer to remain loyal to their long-term partner PBS (one oddity for me of watching Doctor Who on CBC is seeing it with commercial interruptions.) Perhaps someone at Science Fiction Weekly can reach someone at the SCI FI Channel for comment on this? I'm kind of curious to know actually ...
I suspect that the new series of Doctor Who will eventually make its way to U.S. television, most likely via PBS. But I have to agree with W.R. White that it would be extremely cool if SCI FI could be the ones to air it instead.
Stewart Tame
SBTame(at)webtv.net
egarding the letter "Only Poor Writers Use Bad Language":
With all due respect, to state that "only poor writers use bad language" is pure nonsense, to say the least. Poor language, sex, violence and such occurs in everyday life. What the writers and creators of Battlestar Galactica and other fine shows are doing, is trying to capture the essence of everyday life in the future. In your sanitized version of life, I guess you don't hear curse words ever. That is the strong impression you are giving out when you want all movies and TV shows to be safe for kids. There are plenty of TV shows and movies for kids, leave the rest of us alone to watch what we like, and don't try to force your idea of morals on the rest of us. If you don't like the show, then watch something else. You're not going to stop bad language and viewing sexual themes because you don't like to see them. It's about time you grew up and realized you do not control the rest of us, we are not robots.
We want realism. Whether any of us like to curse or watch sexual themes is beside the point, it happens in the real world. A movie or TV show to have the illusion of being real must, on occasion, explore bad language, slang, sexual themes, violence and crazy people.
If you don't like to see this stuff, then keep your head in the sand and let the rest of us live an uncensored life without the shackles you want to impose on us.
Sincerely, a disgusted anti-censor and freedom-loving person.
Steve Martinovich
loanarngr(at)juno.com
egarding the letter "Only Poor Writers Use Bad Language" (Letters to the Editor, April 19, 2005):
Gloria Hoffner has interesting views on the use of profanity, sex and violence.
She even goes as far as to quote Byron in order to support her views. I say, perhaps if Byron had a little more sex, violence and profanity in his work he wouldn't have been so debauched in his real life. She says: "Anthologists have noted that the culture is losing something by no longer having shows watched by entire families" but news flash: watching television is not actually helpful to family cohesion. It only seems so because of the proximity in space while watching. You are not interacting, not learning more about each other while watching TV.
Let's be careful of taking the moral high ground here. Sex, violence and profanity has always been part of human social groups and I say it is the poor writer who ignores it or covers it up. Fiction must take in the breadth of human experience otherwise it's a whitewashed mockery. Parents are responsible for teaching children to differentiate right from wrong, not the writers of fiction as so many 21st-century parents seem to think.
Wake up, humans. We must be the only species in existence embarrassed by sexual and violent impulses. We spend so much time lamenting the exposure of a nipple during a sporting event or the amount of violence in Sin City. Seeing Jolene Blalock's underwear in Enterprise is titillation? Well, what isn't? What do you think of Uhura's short skirt? Why do you think it was there? Why do you think "Plato's Stepchildren" is a cult favorite?
Go back in time and you'll find titillation everywhere in fiction and the reason is simple: to get the audience to pay attention before you hit them with the actual message. Yes, the violence is more graphic than before but audiences today have 24-hour news that shows them horror stories in detail. It takes more to make people sit up and pay attention these days. It wasn't so in 1969.
And let's not get into lamentations about the rise of video games. I remember when we had to go to arcades dropping coin after coin in order to enjoy what we now have in our homes. It's just an alternative entertainment form and certainly more interactive than television. The radio generation had the same complaint about the rise of television.
Science fiction as an art form should keep up with everything else in order to be relevant.
Tade Thompson
tadethompson(at)yahoo.co.uk
n response to Annette Hunt's letter ("Stargate's End Betrays True Fans"):
Anyone who actually paid attention to the end of the Stargate SG-1 season finale [warning: spoilers follow] "Moebius" should realize that the resulting timeline is almost identical to the original. The only differences seen are that Jack's pond now has fish and that there is now no reason for the time travel, due to the stashing of the ZPM.
Thus, it is plain that Ms. Hunt's assertion that "these new geeky imposters have no history with Thor and the Asgard, Bra'tac, the Tok'ra, the Goa'uld, the Tollan or even the team on Atlantis" is quite mistaken. In fact, if the second timeline of the episode, the one with the geeky imposters, had remained there would not even be an Atlantis expedition.
As Ms. Hunt said, sci-fi is for thinking people. However, it is also for people who view the entire story.
Danny Dyche
tolarian@juno.com
honestly don't have a clue what Annette Hunt is complaining about ("Stargate's End Betrays True Fans"). It's your basic time-travel plot. They went back in time, did a thing with a thing to set the timeline straight, then everything was cool. They weren't replaced by anybody as far as I could see. I guess some
people just need something to complain about, or a good excuse to stop watching a show that they have become bored with. It's just a TV sci-fi drama, for cryin' out loud. It's nothing to get all shook up about.
Bill Olenick
wirloe(at)cox.net
've read some head-shake inspiring letters over the years, but this is the first time I've been driven to actually respond to one. Specifically, Annette Hunt's "Stargate's End Betrays True Fans." Perhaps I'm misreading it and it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but my first reaction was—Has Ms. Hunt actually watched the finale? But maybe I'm being too harsh ... perhaps she missed the actual ending? It did, after all, run slightly off schedule, so maybe she didn't catch the whole thing. [Warning: Spoilers follow.] Just to clear matters up—no, the finale does not end with the geeky dopplegangers taking over. They did, in fact, successfully reset the timeline. The show actually ends with the real SG-1 watching the video left with the ZPM. The scene then switches to Jack's lake—where he and Sam are fishing as Teal'c and Daniel stroll up with their own chairs and fishing gear. A nice fade out that foreshadows the changed dynamic for next season.
I certainly hope Ms. Hunt stops and reconsiders before she sells her DVDs and gives up on the series ... otherwise she's likely to miss what could be the best season yet.
Tina Good
shadowsinger13(at)yahoo.com
Back to the top.
