Mr. Di Filippo: I was amazed at your reference to Islandia [in the review of Anathem]. My mother introduced me to it almost 50 years ago. At one point, she even found hardcover copy for me. (She was a librarian.) Very unfortunately, it got lost in one or another moves over my lifetime.

I have always held a special place in my heart for Islandia, and [author Austin Tappan Wright] himself. My mother was a distant relative, and told me about him. He reminded me a bit of Wallace Stevens. After reading his Wikipedia entry, I remember why. He pursued a conventional life, but he wrote continuously, though only one story was published in his lifetime. Did you know the original manuscript for Islandia was 2,300 pages? It would be interesting to see that. If you have not already, I urge you to read the Wikipedia entry.

It was the first true utopian novel I'd ever read, in spite of having started to read SF at a very early age (to my mother's chagrin). I just looked it up at Powell's, my local bookstore, and saw that a new edition was published last year. I haven't read it in many years, as, until now, I've been unable to find it. I look forward to renewing an old friendship.

Most people I've met over the years have never heard of it, whether literary or SF readers (no, I do not discriminate between the two!).

Have you written about it before? One can hope that some of your readers may take a cue from you and revive.

I got a signed edition of Anathem last week, and plan to start it tonight. I have read—and thoroughly enjoyed—almost everything of Stephenson's.

Thanks for the review and the mention of Islandia.

Michael Cassutt's column [last] week ("DQ") had some interesting ideas. His "delta quotient" is a good means for discriminating between a science-fiction story and a technothriller, for example—two genres that are superficially similar, but completely different in their intents and approaches.

The one statement I'd like to contest is his characterization of Battlestar Galactica as a show with a low DQ. Its heroes, he says, "aren't trying to discover new technologies or deal with radical changes to their creative universe." Fair enough about new technologies, which BSG has very little truck with, but "radical changes" are what the show is all about. The difference, I think, is that it focuses on how society and religion are affected by cataclysmic change, two subjects largely avoided by SF television. As the show progresses it becomes more and more clear that it's about the next step of human evolution (at least in its fictional setting). Compare it to Childhood's End, or Blood Music, in a general way.

On the other hand, Mr. Cassutt also mentions a couple superhero movies. Iron Man and Batman have plenty of exciting new technologies at their disposal, but the stories aren't about the impact of those technologies on the world at large, which I thought was a defining characteristic of science fiction. The X-Men, I would think, have a much higher DQ, although the "science" involved is dubious.

I wanted to ask Michael Cassutt to clarify some of his premise for his (admittedly great) Delta Quotient ("DQ") for evaluating sci-fi. He seems to apply his DQ only to larger social or geographic events ... world-shakers, in other words. For example, he feels Tolkien's backstory to Lord of the Rings, the story of how the One Ring and all the other magic rings (three for the elves, seven for the dwarves, nine for the mortal men) were made has a much larger DQ than the story in Lord of the Rings, which centers on disposing of the One Ring.

But in what sense? For one thing, once the One Ring is gone, it is pretty clearly stated that all the other rings (those that remain, anyway) will all lose power and have to leave Middle-earth. I'd call that a pretty big Delta right there. Likewise, Frodo is forced to alter his life so drastically to solve this problem that he is unable to "go home again" and must also leave Middle-earth. That's another pretty big Delta, too, albeit on a personal level for Frodo and his friends and family. In the course of events leading up to the distruction of the Ring, and then in the immediate aftermath, other big changes occur: A major force of evil is completely destroyed, leaving his minions powerless and easily disposed of, Gondor has a king again after literal generations of regency, and the remaining magical guardians of Middle-earth either withdraw (Galadriel, Elrond, Gandalf), are killed (Saruman, Radagast) or become mortal (Arwen). Finally, the hobbits learn to defend themselves and their land, and even if they return to their normal pastoral existance, they will never again be as naive a people as they once were. (Remember, there are memorials to those who died, and history books/scrolls being written that extol the virtues of their war leaders, Sam, Pippin and Merry. This is going to have a subtle but permanent effect on the hobbits' perceptions of themselves as a people, I predict.)

So, actually, Lord of the Rings has a very large DG ... Michael Cassutt appeared not to see the forest for the trees!

All I keep hearing about is Fringe, Fringe, Fringe, ostensibly the best bet, sci-fi-wise, on network television this fall. But as usual, Fox is stupid when it comes to science fiction. They put it up against Eureka!

I'll tape Fringe—but that won't give it any ratings. If anyone thinks I'll put off watching Eureka, they need their heads examined. Thus, people like me who would have watched Fringe and aided in its ratings, won't be.

So, to paraphrase a famous newcaster: The Fox television programming director, today's "Worst Person in the World."

So you guys gave True Blood a B grade? Did we both see the same show? Frankly, after 15 minutes I was so bored I had to change the channel. I mean, really, it was so banal ... more of "we're on cable so we can use dirty words and graphic sex to fill in space in the plot holes." The characters seemed so stereotypical I felt the writers had a "Standard Southern Drama" checklist to fill out as they went along.

I like a good vampire story as much as the next girl, but this show just really isn't good. Anna Paquin is always fun to watch, but even she couldn't save this one for me.

My, but I love a good skewering! Derivative works need panache and at least some originality. Otherwise they are nothing but bad copies. [The Age of the Conglomerates] seems to be one of the bad copies. At the other end of the scale, authors like Lois McMaster Bujold show how you can take very old ideas that are anything but original (the tropes of space opera) and turn them into high art (so did George Lucas once upon a time). I speak, of course, of the Vorkosigan Saga, which on the face of it is as bland as they come. "Crippled scion of great family in militaristic society recently reintegrated into galactic communications makes name for himself." Doesn't sound so great, does it? But in McMaster Bujold's hands, it is a pure visceral pleasure to read. Note to aspiring authors: Never forget to entertain your reader. The vast majority of us don't get paid to read.

Paul [Di Filippo] remains my favorite SCI FI Weekly reviewer (the rest of you are good, too, though!) because he has that subtle sense of irony pervading his articles.

Save Stargate Atlantis! SCI FI Channel and MGM can take their new creation, Stargate Universe, and cancel it now. What's the point of being a loyal fan if the show is canceled when it's so loved?! I won't be watching new spinoffs since that would only encourage the cancellation of future shows that are quite young.

But then, what does SCI FI and MGM care about me when I am not in their demographic? I'm old at 33. And while Samantha Carter may be able to do anything a man can do, even though her reproductive organs are on the inside, I cannot. I'm just a girl. Maybe Golden Girls is on.

I have to agree with Barbara Goldstein's letter ("Remakes Are Unnecessary"). Enough with the remakes. There are too many good works of sci-fi out there to be bothered with remaking something that is in itself excellent already. How about a nice little gem by Richard Dreyfuss and Harry Turtledove called The Two Georges? Hell, Richard should play Col. Bushell.

So much good science fiction to pick from, from Cherryh to McCaffrey, Adams to Zahn. Please let's try working on some more diverse works. Also, please, I don't know who convinced the people at the SCI FI Channel that Freddy, Jason, Michael, Chucky and other odd assorted pieces of the horror genre were science fiction, but it isn't and doesn't belong on the SCI FI Channel. Let it get its own channel, (The Hairy Monster & Horror Channel).

Thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.

I can understand Barbara Goldstein's trepidation of such classics as The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Prisoner. I am particularly nervous amout the remaking of The Day the Earth Stood Still.

And yet, sometimes a remake or reimaging does work. If we just look at the list of items nominated for a Hugo in the category of best dramatic presentation, short form, two are for the revival of Doctor Who, one is for the reimage of Battlestar Galactica, one is for a fan-produced Star Trek reimage, and the last is for Torchwood, an offshot of Doctor Who. These are good works, and I consider one of the episodes of Doctor Who, "Blink," to be one of the top SF TV episodes that I have ever seen.

Further, we have also seen other important revivals and reimagings, such as Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Buffy.

So perhaps Klaatu will fall flat on his feet and Number 6 will be swallowed by the big ball, but then again, perhaps one will turn out to be a new classic.

I had another problem with Dark Knight, in addition to the one cited by Art Ramos ("Bat-grade Is Spot-On").

The Two-Face makeup is very over the top, to the point of being poorly done. Yes, I know Two-Face is supposed to be grotesque, but if you can see facial muscles, you should also be able to see them move when he talks! If they are as frozen as they appear, then his speech should be affected. Yet we see and hear Two-Face talking quite clearly, and the "good" side of his face moves quite naturally, while the "bad" side never moves at all. Honestly, I think this makeup could have been dialed back about 10 to 15 percent without detracting from the horror at all. And the prosthesis needed to move with his speech, or his speech needed to be slurred.

I am a nurse, and I have actually seen someone whose lower jaw was in that condition due to skin cancer ... the muscles visibly moved (visible when his dressing was being changed) if he talked. And that would have been plenty gross enough for anyone!