Thank you. This was my favorite book up to this hour. It's painful to realize the messages I aligned with, subconciously, when I would never align with them if I had seen them presented in a different way.
Sometimes its nice to be wrong and have the chance to reconsider. Thank you.
I like his books quite a lot, his characters always show a huge amount of acceptance and compassion. Pretty much just the inverse amount that he appears to show in reality.
I've never been a fanatic about any author/artist, I separate the creation from the creator and that's how I intend to continue living. Just as I wouldn't lose my shit if I saw Card, or Morgan Freeman, or Britney Spears in a coffee shop. I'd give a polite nod and move along.
I feel that way too. In fact, it makes me kind of unhappy that I'll have to miss Ender's Game in the theater, I just can't give that man my money when he might use it for something I disagree with so much.
I'm stealing this from minikites comment above. His characters and the book's message might send the wrong message about acceptance - acceptance of his behavior, not that of "inherently evil" people.
In Ender's game, it's all about accepting the differences between humans and the buggers. They think and behave in completely different ways, and you must love them and understand them. Later with the Piggies, there are those who wanted to quarantine and destroy the planet, but the "heroes" risked life and limb to save them.
Even in the Homecoming Saga, which was a very biblical work from the start, there's quite a bit of effort to soothe the differences between the bats/rats and get them to live in peace with their differences.
Honestly, I've read a ton of his works and time after time his characters are great people and their goals are often agreeable and reasonable.
I did believe that and had read the book 6 times believing that. The point of fact is that Ender was not a great person - or even a good person. While I enjoyed the aspects of interconnectedness between the two groups - and the "redemption" of Ender by connecting with his enemy (the Queen) after reading these articles I am convinced my original love of the book was unwarranted.
It's the story of an abused kid, and his adult mentors, who grows up to accept abuse and cover up that abuse behind the cover of "good intentions" or "neccessity". Look at Ender's treatment of Bean - becoming the enemy he hated because he feels its neccessary.
The book was radically good at convincing me Ender was reasonable and moral - but that doesn't mean he was. If you haven't read those essays minikite linked too I suggest you do. Particularly Ender's simple dismissal of the student's disgust at Ender's murder of the Formic is telling. "You should see it from Ender's perspective, not the perspective of the destroyed race," is silly victim-blaming. It's odd how I missed it up until today.
Ender hated that side of himself, the destructive side. No one ever said that the "adults" aka the military in that book were good people. It's not directly stated, but to me it had an implied tone of wrongness, that they thought they were acting as they must to strike first. In later books the Hive Queen confirms that they were never going to come back and that makes an obvious statement that the xenocide was unnecessary.
As for Ender's treatment of Bean, I think that's pretty much identical to how coaches and military leaders behave. Ender even privately scolds himself for the way he mirrored Graffs treatment of him in Bean's treatment. After that I believe he makes an effort to treat his subordinates as friends, but it's too late (because they still act coldly toward him).
I think Ender hated and regretted what he was forced into unwittingly doing, hence his writing of the Hive Queen & Hegemon as well as the years of hearing himself referred to as "Ender the Xenocide" without ever defending his actions once.
I think that maybe you're too excited to be upset by this. Card is a twat, but I hold that his books are a closet outlet for his rational mind.
Mr. Card holds conservative personal beliefs, and has been vocal about them - especially after Sept. 11, 2001.
His books are moving, profound and Apolitical.
If you avoid his books just because you don't like conservatives (and think they are all terrible people and Asshats), it is your loss.
I will say one thing about this "latest" scandal (his writings supporting traditional marriage from back in 2008).
Although today it is a fait accompli, back in 2008 it was a hotly debated topic. Conservatives lost and the country moved on.
Throwing out 2008 arguments into a 2013 world can make ANYONE look bad.
Here's what Mr. Card has to say today:
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
If you think his books are apolitical, you haven't read them. The Shadow of Ender series in particular drips with all kinds of conservative themes. For example it waxes ad nauseum over abortion.
That said. I don't see a reason to associate a persons's work with their personal beliefs. Tolerance through intolerance of differing opinions is not the right way to promote tolerance. I'm not going to see the movie because I expect it to be a bland CGI fest.
I don't see hatred for him being a conservative - I see a dislike for him spending lots of money to keep a minority from having rights.
His version of intolerance towards homosexuals was spending money to prevent them from having rights.
Their version of intolerance is to attempt to convince people not to see his movie or buy his book.
I don't think the second qualifies as intolerance. I also think it is completely within someones interest to speak out against supporting those who oppress them. There are plenty of interesting and great science fiction books or movies written by decent, reasonable people that could be supported instead.
Also I the links in this thread show a side of the books that is far from "apolitical", although they were moving and profound for me.
> On the phone and in his incoherent published reply, Card repeatedly shows ignorance of what he himself purportedly wrote. I simply cannot imagine how you could write such a stunningly well crafted piece of work (inasmuch as it is wildly popular and deeply affects people) without being aware of every fibre and splinter of its composition. About the third or fourth time I heard Card say something wasn't in his book that I knew was, I began to suspect that it was more of a committee effort.
> Notice that even John Kessel distances himself from the Hitler Hypothesis even though he draws many of the same conclusions Elaine does. Card manages to sound very convincing when he says Hitler was never on his mind and that it's Elaine who has the Hitler obsession; I think he's so convincing because he wasn't in on the joke himself. Elaine's essay may have been as much a revelation to him as it was to anyone else.
> I've seen Elaine's notes and heard Card on the phone, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Hitler Hypothesis is correct; it is simply impossible that Ender's Game and Speaker were written by someone who did not have a very detailed knowledge of Adolph Hitler's life. There are very exact parallels in there that you wouldn't even notice unless you read the footnotes to the most detailed Hitler biographies. I also tend to believe that Card does not have that level of knowledge about Hitler. Ergo, it is very hard for me to believe that he wrote the books. The assumption that he did not explains a great many otherwise mysterious things.
It's a telling indicator of just how far the modern thought process has been pwned by belief in government-uber-alles that the oppression of a group finally stopping implies a manifest right to have the government promote this group, and that those who disagree are bad people. If we actually had control over the complexity of this beast, we would have simply had the government stop this business of marriage-sanctioning altogether - removing the injustice against the polygamists, singles, etc along with the gays. But don't worry about their plight for long - I'm sure some will be the subject of another feel-good political distraction in two decade's time.
20 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 74.7 ms ] threadOrson Scott Card Has Always Been an Asshat (2005): http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/22428/7034
ender and hitler: sympathy for the superman (20 years later) (2007): http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html
Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality (2004): http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
Sometimes its nice to be wrong and have the chance to reconsider. Thank you.
What kind of person takes an author's books and beats him over the head with them?
I've never been a fanatic about any author/artist, I separate the creation from the creator and that's how I intend to continue living. Just as I wouldn't lose my shit if I saw Card, or Morgan Freeman, or Britney Spears in a coffee shop. I'd give a polite nod and move along.
Orson Scott Card Has Always Been an Asshat (2005): http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/22428/7034
ender and hitler: sympathy for the superman (20 years later) (2007): http://peachfront.diaryland.com/enderhitlte.html
Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality (2004): http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
Even in the Homecoming Saga, which was a very biblical work from the start, there's quite a bit of effort to soothe the differences between the bats/rats and get them to live in peace with their differences.
Honestly, I've read a ton of his works and time after time his characters are great people and their goals are often agreeable and reasonable.
It's the story of an abused kid, and his adult mentors, who grows up to accept abuse and cover up that abuse behind the cover of "good intentions" or "neccessity". Look at Ender's treatment of Bean - becoming the enemy he hated because he feels its neccessary.
The book was radically good at convincing me Ender was reasonable and moral - but that doesn't mean he was. If you haven't read those essays minikite linked too I suggest you do. Particularly Ender's simple dismissal of the student's disgust at Ender's murder of the Formic is telling. "You should see it from Ender's perspective, not the perspective of the destroyed race," is silly victim-blaming. It's odd how I missed it up until today.
As for Ender's treatment of Bean, I think that's pretty much identical to how coaches and military leaders behave. Ender even privately scolds himself for the way he mirrored Graffs treatment of him in Bean's treatment. After that I believe he makes an effort to treat his subordinates as friends, but it's too late (because they still act coldly toward him).
I think Ender hated and regretted what he was forced into unwittingly doing, hence his writing of the Hive Queen & Hegemon as well as the years of hearing himself referred to as "Ender the Xenocide" without ever defending his actions once.
I think that maybe you're too excited to be upset by this. Card is a twat, but I hold that his books are a closet outlet for his rational mind.
His books are moving, profound and Apolitical.
If you avoid his books just because you don't like conservatives (and think they are all terrible people and Asshats), it is your loss.
I will say one thing about this "latest" scandal (his writings supporting traditional marriage from back in 2008).
Although today it is a fait accompli, back in 2008 it was a hotly debated topic. Conservatives lost and the country moved on.
Throwing out 2008 arguments into a 2013 world can make ANYONE look bad.
Here's what Mr. Card has to say today:
With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.
Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
That said. I don't see a reason to associate a persons's work with their personal beliefs. Tolerance through intolerance of differing opinions is not the right way to promote tolerance. I'm not going to see the movie because I expect it to be a bland CGI fest.
His version of intolerance towards homosexuals was spending money to prevent them from having rights.
Their version of intolerance is to attempt to convince people not to see his movie or buy his book.
I don't think the second qualifies as intolerance. I also think it is completely within someones interest to speak out against supporting those who oppress them. There are plenty of interesting and great science fiction books or movies written by decent, reasonable people that could be supported instead.
Also I the links in this thread show a side of the books that is far from "apolitical", although they were moving and profound for me.
Ender's Game STILL sells 100K-200K copies per year.
It is HUGELY popular, so of course some people on the internet are going to ride the publicity coat-tails by smashing it.
Just because two academics find a way to compare the plot to the life of HITLER does NOT mean that Mr. Card had that in mind AT ALL.
> On the phone and in his incoherent published reply, Card repeatedly shows ignorance of what he himself purportedly wrote. I simply cannot imagine how you could write such a stunningly well crafted piece of work (inasmuch as it is wildly popular and deeply affects people) without being aware of every fibre and splinter of its composition. About the third or fourth time I heard Card say something wasn't in his book that I knew was, I began to suspect that it was more of a committee effort.
> Notice that even John Kessel distances himself from the Hitler Hypothesis even though he draws many of the same conclusions Elaine does. Card manages to sound very convincing when he says Hitler was never on his mind and that it's Elaine who has the Hitler obsession; I think he's so convincing because he wasn't in on the joke himself. Elaine's essay may have been as much a revelation to him as it was to anyone else.
> I've seen Elaine's notes and heard Card on the phone, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Hitler Hypothesis is correct; it is simply impossible that Ender's Game and Speaker were written by someone who did not have a very detailed knowledge of Adolph Hitler's life. There are very exact parallels in there that you wouldn't even notice unless you read the footnotes to the most detailed Hitler biographies. I also tend to believe that Card does not have that level of knowledge about Hitler. Ergo, it is very hard for me to believe that he wrote the books. The assumption that he did not explains a great many otherwise mysterious things.