Ender's saga

[demonhunter]

A freind recommended it to me , so I just wanted to ask if it's worth reading:)

[billl]

The first one (ender's game) is a great, quick read--if you like science fiction. So, I'd say check it out (and stay away from reviews about the book, etc., because there's some interesting stuff that would ruin the book if you knew it at the beginning).

I haven't read any of the other books in the saga, but I've seen good reviews for them.

[Mathor]

Ender's Game is certainly a classic, the others in the saga are less impressive.

[JBI]

Ender's Game is certainly a classic, the others in the saga are less impressive.

Classic by whose reckoning - I find them wanting, and politically terrible, but then again, I find Card wanting, and Politically terrible, so it is no surprise. The man's a Jingoistic bigot, and his work reflects as much, though I did only read the first one.

[ktm5124]

Ender's Game is a classic of science fiction. It's highly entertaining.

Card himself is less admirable. He seems to think that academia is in a conspiracy against him, and he sweepingly rejects all literary critics. Perhaps he is insecure of his footing as an author and he needs to do this to think highly of himself. While his books are entertaining, he is certainly no Edgar Allan Poe.

I draw these judgments of him based on his introduction in my edition of Ender's Game.

[Drkshadow03]

Ender's Game is a great book if you divorce it from Card's Mormon viewpoint, and read it in the light of the troubling ethics involved with adults manipulating kids and read the book as paralleling real-world military paradigms where we send kids (read: teenagers) to fight wars.

Enjoyable Sci-fi story, which has a few thought-provoking moments. Worth reading the first one, anyway.

[JBI]

Ender's Game is a great book if you divorce it from Card's Mormon viewpoint, and read it in the light of the troubling ethics involved with adults manipulating kids and read the book as paralleling real-world military paradigms where we send kids (read: teenagers) to fight wars.

Enjoyable Sci-fi story, which has a few thought-provoking moments. Worth reading the first one, anyway.

I guess in 85, casting them Russians as the enemy perhaps works - the whole book smells of a cold-war driven argument for American foreign policy to me.

[Drkshadow03]

I guess in 85, casting them Russians as the enemy perhaps works - the whole book smells of a cold-war driven argument for American foreign policy to me.

Ah, you're American foreign policy bugaboo, why should I expect anything else. However, I do see how one can interpret the aliens as Russians in a Cold War milieu. I would agree that is a valid interpretation, but I would also suggest one need not read them as Russians either. They're aliens; they work as a generalized other. And part of Card's point ironically enough is that the whole war spawns out of control over miscommunication between the two races, if I remember correctly.

[billl]

I'm getting a little worried that somebody is gonna spoil something for someone who just might decide to read it.

[JBI]

Ah, you're American foreign policy bugaboo, why should I expect anything else. However, I do see how one can interpret the aliens as Russians in a Cold War milieu. I would agree that is a valid interpretation, but I would also suggest one need not read them as Russians either. They're aliens; they work as a generalized other. And part of Card's point ironically enough is that the whole war spawns out of control over miscommunication between the two races, if I remember correctly.

No, I was referring to the actual Russians within the text - the war with the Buggers is a distraction from the coldwar - they both turn to a new common enemy, but when that is believed to be ebbing, the cold war resumes, until the Americans take out the buggers, and then the Russians concede because they've run out of options.

The miscommunication is not the point - it is the lack of mutual compatibility - the Americans, or "space guild" or whatever they are called, think, essentially, us or them, so the answer is us, and they wipe them out completely. It's no different than, for instance, dropping a nuke on Cuba, waiting a few years for the waste to disappear, and then moving in.

But the problem with the text is it justifies this sort of preemptive violence as a form of keeping the status quo - the whole thing is laced with Reagan day concepts. It makes the violent Hitleresque into a sort of national hero, yet at the same time, absolves him of total guilt.

The whole concept of the generalized other is essentially the flaw of fantasy - originally, if I can trace my memory, the generalized other was an enemy - so you have the Bible with Amelechites or whatever, who everyone chears when they get wiped off the map. That essentially changes to Moors in Charlemagne, and Arabs in Tasso - the narrative is needing of something one can wipe out without feeling bad for. It's anything black in Tolkien, notably Orcs and men from the (East?), but Card merely shifts the binary to Aliens, and to anything that is an enemy of the US.

I can, given the time period, justify to myself reading this text as support of, for instance, Reagan South American policy, or an offshoot of support for the Vietnam war, or the Shah's regime in Iran - I think the text is supporting it, and, given Card's other writings, I wouldn't put it past him.

Of course, this is better than some of his others - in this one he doesn't openly rip on homosexuals, as he does in his essays.

[billl]

demonhunter, it's been years since I read the book, but I think a lot of the stuff being discussed is maybe spread out through the saga. It's not really ringing a bell with me, and I don't think much has been said that would ruin the first book for you.

[Drkshadow03]

No, I was referring to the actual Russians within the text - the war with the Buggers is a distraction from the coldwar - they both turn to a new common enemy, but when that is believed to be ebbing, the cold war resumes, until the Americans take out the buggers, and then the Russians concede because they've run out of options.

The miscommunication is not the point - it is the lack of mutual compatibility - the Americans, or "space guild" or whatever they are called, think, essentially, us or them, so the answer is us, and they wipe them out completely. It's no different than, for instance, dropping a nuke on Cuba, waiting a few years for the waste to disappear, and then moving in.

I just flipped through the text again. The cold war resumes after Ender kills the last buggers. They want to user Ender as a symbol of inspiration. I see this element more as descriptive rather than prescriptive since it is a minor background element in the book and it is hard to read OSC's views in the fictionalized text on these issues. In other words, the text was written with the backdrop of the Cold War. So what?

The end of the story suggests miscommunication because humans believe a lack of mutual compatibility. Still, in essence the issue is a miscommunication.


But the problem with the text is it justifies this sort of preemptive violence as a form of keeping the status quo - the whole thing is laced with Reagan day concepts. It makes the violent Hitleresque into a sort of national hero, yet at the same time, absolves him of total guilt.

Yes, yes, we've all read Elaine Radford's review comparing Ender to Hitler. I've also read the longish essay by John Kessel (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm) who agrees with Radford, but modifies some of her assertions. I see what they are saying, but Kessel commits of the flaw of over relying on the author's background to make his argument. I have no problem with this, and I would concede his interpretation is correct, but then again so is mine. There is nothing that requires me to read the author or his mormon politics into the text. For all the reasons pointed out in the bagillion essays on this topic, I may not know anything about the author's politics and only have the text to judge from, there are times when texts are not always successful at conveying an author's political message, and different readers will bring and take different things from a text.

The outside world might absolve him of guilt, but it's clear from the text--I know I just skimmed--he hasn't absolved himself of his own guilt. Plus this is one of the interesting ethical issues: Part of the problem is that the adults deceive him into committing genocide, he doesn't know what the hell he is doing. Kessel appeals to Card's Mormon philosophy to suggest that Card believes that in morality intentions trump outcomes. Kessel, of course, is taking a more traditional leftist approach where "intentions don't matter" and only outcomes matter, hence why this problematic.

I'm taking a more sophisticated approach at reading the text: it raises a conflict between intentions and actions. Ender himself is the subversive element to the rest of society's ideology, which is ready to forgive him of his crime; he is the only one willing to accept and thus take some responsibility for his actions. There is far more nuance to the situation as displayed in the text and how the text actually reads than Kessel grants, you grant, or Radford.



The whole concept of the generalized other is essentially the flaw of fantasy - originally, if I can trace my memory, the generalized other was an enemy - so you have the Bible with Amelechites or whatever, who everyone chears when they get wiped off the map. That essentially changes to Moors in Charlemagne, and Arabs in Tasso - the narrative is needing of something one can wipe out without feeling bad for. It's anything black in Tolkien, notably Orcs and men from the (East?), but Card merely shifts the binary to Aliens, and to anything that is an enemy of the US.

Oh please, far more genres than just fantasy and Sci-fi use the Other. There are thousands of Sci-fi and fantasy authors, you're painting with a broad brush as usual.


I can, given the time period, justify to myself reading this text as support of, for instance, Reagan South American policy, or an offshoot of support for the Vietnam war, or the Shah's regime in Iran - I think the text is supporting it, and, given Card's other writings, I wouldn't put it past him.

Of course, this is better than some of his others - in this one he doesn't openly rip on homosexuals, as he does in his essays.

Oh, no doubt you can justify it. I never disagreed with your reading. I just said I could also justify my reading. And yes, I would agree Card's opinions on homosexuals and other issues are seedy, and I don't think of him as a stellar human being. But I also don't see what that has to do with my appreciation of any individual work of art either.

[JBI]

I didn't criticize you liking them, just the text - personally what people like isn't as big an issue as what people praise to me, and heralding it as a classic seemed a little over the top for a book barely two decades old.

[Drkshadow03]

I didn't criticize you liking them, just the text - personally what people like isn't as big an issue as what people praise to me, and heralding it as a classic seemed a little over the top for a book barely two decades old.

I was arguing from the text, though, not just defending that I like the book.

Ender's Game has thus far succeeded as a classic of Sci-fi. I can walk up to genre fans of any and every age (newbie 13 year olds entering the field or fans that are 60+) and I am positive almost everyone will have heard of Ender's Game. So I understand what people mean when they say it is a classic of the genre. So far it has kept a steady stream of readers. Will it last, who knows?

[JBI]

I was arguing from the text, though, not just defending that I like the book.

Ender's Game has thus far succeeded as a classic of Sci-fi. I can walk up to genre fans of any and every age (newbie 13 year olds entering the field or fans that are 60+) and I am positive almost everyone will have heard of Ender's Game. So I understand what people mean when they say it is a classic of the genre. So far it has kept a steady stream of readers. Will it last, who knows?

Go up to anyone and talk about Dan Brown - I'm sure they have heard of him, or JK Rowling, or John Grisham or whatever - does that make them classics?

The book, as I have said, is two decades old. The amount of knowledge by genre readers doesn't determine classic status - Mecromegas, for instance, is a sci-fi classic, as is Wild Seed by Octavia Butler (an excellent book by my reckoning), yet I doubt as many people have heard of those texts, because, they are far older - Voltaire's is centuries old, whereas Butler's decades.

[billl]

here's 1985 bestsellers (according to http://www.caderbooks.com/best80.html)


1 9 8 5

F I C T I O N



1. The Mammoth Hunters, Jean M. Auel

2. Texas, James A. Michener

3. Lake Wobegon Days, Garrison Keillor

4. If Tomorrow Comes, Sidney Sheldon

5. Skeleton Crew, Stephen King

6. Secrets, Danielle Steel

7. Contact, Carl Sagan

8. Lucky, Jackie Collins

9. Family Album, Danielle Steel

10. Jubal Sackett, Louis L'Amour

Dan Brown and Rowling are well-known now, but they've been successful quite recently. Looking at this list, I think only Stephen King would get the same kind of recognition in an informal poll.

Of course, Card is being discussed as a genre classic (that's what I had assumed), and Ender's Game does, at least, seem to have legs. Maybe not H.G. Wells-type legs, but still. Also, without getting into spoilers, I just want to say that the main "spoiler" in the book would be something that might have been a bit prophetic of modern-day sci-fi concerns. However, the fact that Neuromacer (by Gibson) was written a year earlier helps to put things in perspective, in my opinion.

Anyhow, for me, a lot of science fiction reads sort of pulpy. Even Philip K. Dick, Gibson, and a lot of other stuff worth reading. That's just part of sci-fi a lot of the time, so I'm always a bit reluctant to slap "classic" on any of it, at least in an atmosphere like we have in LitNet General Literature.

[JBI]

here's 1985 bestsellers (according to http://www.caderbooks.com/best80.html)



Dan Brown and Rowling are well-known now, but they've been successful quite recently. Looking at this list, I think only Stephen King would get the same kind of recognition in an informal poll.

Of course, Card is being discussed as a genre classic (that's what I had assumed), and Ender's Game does, at least, seem to have legs. Maybe not H.G. Wells-type legs, but still. Also, without getting into spoilers, I just want to say that the main "spoiler" in the book would be something that might have been a bit prophetic of modern-day sci-fi concerns. However, the fact that Neuromacer (by Gibson) was written a year earlier helps to put things in perspective, in my opinion.

Anyhow, for me, a lot of science fiction reads sort of pulpy. Even Philip K. Dick, Gibson, and a lot of other stuff worth reading. That's just part of sci-fi a lot of the time, so I'm always a bit reluctant to slap "classic" on any of it, at least in an atmosphere like we have in LitNet General Literature.

It won both the Hugo and Nebula, so it didn't go without recognition - the popularity on a general list cannot measure just the genre - genre readers embraced it from its beginnings - and now that there is going to be a movie, if the movie is any good, it will probably get an extended pump up.

[Mathor]

Ender's Game is a great book if you divorce it from Card's Mormon viewpoint, and read it in the light of the troubling ethics involved with adults manipulating kids and read the book as paralleling real-world military paradigms where we send kids (read: teenagers) to fight wars.

Enjoyable Sci-fi story, which has a few thought-provoking moments. Worth reading the first one, anyway.

nahh, I wasn't getting at all that when I called it a classic. It's certainly a good book, but I wouldn't call it 'thought-provoking'. It's just simply an entertaining and well-organized story.

[billl]

oops, my last post missed JBI's edits (the last paragraph was added, I think).

Well, I have friends who are smart, intelligent, etc. and they really consider Ender's Game to be something special in sci-fi. In my opinion, it isn't a weird one to use "classic" on. Is it just the (real-world) geopolitical view of the writer that maybe makes it non-classic? Or the pulpy writing? Both? Are there any merits we can agree on?

By the way demonhunter, you should probably stop reading this thread if you want to read the book.

[Mathor]

Also, with Orson Scott Card's accidental success with Ender's Game, he will never match the likes of great successes like Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy.

[billl]

It won both the Hugo and Nebula, so it didn't go without recognition

Aargh. Sorry, about that-- I meant only King would get as much recognition as Brown and Rowling. I wasn't talking about Card's book there. But I actually didn't realize the awards that Ender's Game got, and the movie on the way. I think that'll all help it's chances on attaining classic status among sci-fi fans (who can be forgiving about writing style and other literary concerns. if it's readable and got some interesting ideas, that's often enough for those readers. but i'd bet you feel differently...)

[Drkshadow03]

Go up to anyone and talk about Dan Brown - I'm sure they have heard of him, or JK Rowling, or John Grisham or whatever - does that make them classics?

The book, as I have said, is two decades old. The amount of knowledge by genre readers doesn't determine classic status - Mecromegas, for instance, is a sci-fi classic, as is Wild Seed by Octavia Butler (an excellent book by my reckoning), yet I doubt as many people have heard of those texts, because, they are far older - Voltaire's is centuries old, whereas Butler's decades.

. . . Yes, a whole 5 years. Wild Seeds = 1980, Ender's Game = 1985.

It's also Genre Canons that I am speaking about. I would hardly call Isaac Asimov's work of the same calibre as most Classic literature (though it's not bad in its own right), yet his works are clearly classics of Sci-fi. You can't talk about Sci-fi without talking about his works.

[Mathor]

Aargh. Sorry, about that-- I meant only King would get as much recognition as Brown and Rowling. I wasn't talking about Card's book there. But I actually didn't realize the awards that Ender's Game got, and the movie on the way. I think that'll all help it's chances on attaining classic status among sci-fi fans (who can be forgiving about writing style and other literary concerns. if it's readable and got some interesting ideas, that's often enough for those readers. but i'd bet you feel differently...)

Ehh, I wouldn't judge sci-fi readers in such a respect. There are some who like the useless dribble of Robert Jordan etc etc, but I think science fiction is a genre full of lots of respectable literature. However, since science fiction tends to appeal to readers who are younger (and possibly have read less), a lot of the greater books are not spoken of as often.

EDIT: and in response to Drkshadow, I think most people respect the works of Isaac Asimov, H.G Wells, Ray Bradbury, and persons like that, and put their works in the same literary canon as those of Tolstoy, etc.

[billl]

Ehh, I wouldn't judge sci-fi readers in such a respect

I actually agree with you, I think. My position maybe looks a little exaggerated. I haven't read Robert Jordan, but there's a lot of bad writing that some people go for. My point is that there aren't really any Nabokovs or anything like that to choose from in sci-fi. Nominating Card, Gibson, Asimov, etc. for classic status involves a certain forgiveness about the quality of prose, and some uneven character development, etc. I always happy when it's written well, but it's the ideas (about tech, different forms/ways of life, the nature of space, and how those things impact individuals, cultures, etc.) that I read sci-fi for.

[billl]

Whoa, good point about Bradbury. I definitely regard him as being a cut above. Still, it's the ideas more than the writing.