<p>The Outsiders made a big splash because it was seen as presenting a realistic look at teens who were not particularly good guys. And it didn’t hurt that it was written by a teen and became a bestseller. YA books had more sex, drugs and violence than tradtional children’s books.There have been children’s books for a long time (at least the 19th century anyway). I think Heinlein’s books were marketed as kids books and have limited violence and no sex or drugs that I can remember. I came to them way too late to appreciate them - to me they seem so mired in 1950s assumptions I can’t take them seriously.</p>
<p>There are aspects of sexism in Card - are so few women capable of being warriors? But at least he imagines a future where there are powerful women even if there aren’t many of them. I’m impressed with how well he imagined personal computers and the internet at a time when both were in their infancy.</p>
<p>These days, whether in books or movies, the ambiguous ending is often just a marketing ploy to ready the audience for the sequel. With The War of the Worlds, I thought H.G. Wells wanted us to genuinely reflect upon what the next step might be for the survivors. With Card, I wondered if the open-endedness was just a transition to books two through five.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Absolutely! I thought the same thing. He didn’t even know quite what to do with the character of Petra (who fails at the end – poor little lady gets tired). I also noted that Ender is a commander and Peter is a despot, but Valentine is a loving nurturer. Some gender stereotyping there.</p>
<p>OSC definitely had a sequel in mind (outlined even) when he wrote the novel but “Ender’s Game” originated as a novelette - published in Analog Magazine about 7-8 years before the novel. OSC later expanded Ender’s story to novel length to set up Speaker for the Dead.</p>
<p>I think it was. When I finished Ender’s Game a few years ago and learned that the next book in the series was from the viewpoint of Bean, I absolutely couldn’t wait to read it.</p>
<p>Edit: Crossposted with Ignatius. Interesting, Ignatius!</p>
<p>Actually was interesting is that there are two sets of sequels to Ender’s Game. The original set of sequels follow Ender out into space, has he becomes a Speaker for the Dead and lets you see a bit of how the colonization effort goes and some new civilizations they meet up with, and you eventually learn the fate of the Hive Queen. A second, newer set of sequels focuses first on Bean, and then more broadly on Peter and how life on earth continues. The Speaker for the Dead books are very different in feel from Ender’s Game - less action no space battles. The Bean point of view books is fun, though a little less believable for me. The books focusing on Peter are not nearly as interesting. He seems to have abandoned them to tell the back story of Mazer Rackham.</p>
<p>Wow, I never knew there were two sets of sequels to Ender. I don’t think my kids did either. </p>
<p>I read a couple of the books in what I guess is called the Shadow Saga (about Bean and Peter, etc) and I didn’t like either of them as much as I did Ender’s Game.</p>
<p>The other sequels, the “Ender series,” actually sound almost more interesting.</p>
<p>Do you suppose that the Ender series is aimed more at adults and the Shadow Saga is aimed more at YA readers? (I mean, evidently Ender’s Game was intended for adult readers…but then, later, was Card acknowledging the youth interest in the book by writing the Shadow Saga?)</p>
<p>I asked my older son and he said he tried the Ender series but didn’t really like it. He read all of the Shadow Saga. I’ll have to ask my younger son about this too sometime.</p>
<p>In the introduction to Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card staunchly defends himself against one of the more common criticisms: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you agree? Were any of you put off by some of the six and seven year old dialogue (internal and/or external)? Ender and his peers don’t sound like normal children to me, but then I didn’t raise geniuses (hi kids, mommy loves you ;)). </p>
<p>If Card believes Ender is a realistic example of a genuine child genius, I’ll take his word for it. But I wonder how it happens that there are so many child geniuses on Ender’s Earth – enough to fill an enormous Battle School. They seem to be the norm rather than the exception.</p>
<p>Child genius as protagonist seems to be a fictional mainstay. At times, I find it to be too much (as with Paloma in The Elegance of the Hedgehog).</p>
<p>On the one hand, I usually imagined the kids a few years older than Card says they are, on the other hand, I had a very precocious first child, who said and did things that really were startling. (Teaching himself to read at two, figuring out how multiplication works by studying a clock that had the minutes as well as the hours written on it.) I remember teaching him fractions when he was four while we were cooking. By the time he was nine he’d taught himself more computer programming than I learned in college. My younger son (smart but not precocious) says, it’s not the way kids talk, even the smart ones, but it’s the way they wish they talked. </p>
<p>I think we all remember being powerless as children. The idea that we (or at least some of us) are smarter than the adults is very appealing.</p>
<p>Also I think most parents feel in their hearts that their children are very, very special, in a way that nobody else can understand. Reading stories about precocious or special children sort of echoes that feeling in a pleasurable manner.</p>
I don’t think all the children in the battle school were geniuses. They were extremely intelligent and hand picked from across the world, but not all of them were geniuses. </p>
<p>What makes someone a “genius”? I am assuming “academic genius” for this discussion. We assume a high IQ, but not all high IQ people are geniuses. Intelligence is a key component, but genius goes beyond IQ. Someone who is genius sees and interprets the world differently. A genius looks for explanations and solutions beyond the obvious. When Ender watched propaganda tapes from past bugger invasions, he saw something no one else could see. Everytime he watched or participated in a battle, he saw things no one else noticed. He truly looked and lived outside the box. Ender is a genius, so is Bean. Were any of the other children in the battle school geniuses? How about Peter? Valentine? I think Peter is a genius, just not “the one” they were looking for to win the bugger war. I’m not sure about Valentine. She claims she is more intelligent than Peter, but is she a genius?</p>
<p>
Great comment. We all like to be taken away in a book to a place or experience we might not get to on our own.</p>
<p>Not all the battle school kids were geniuses. Ender was a “third”–the government allowed his birth (or encouraged) it because they were hoping that good parental DNA would give them their commander.</p>
<p>^ BUandBC82 and gouf78, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that all those invited to Battle School had to be child geniuses, but I gather it’s just child prodigies, that is, gifted in one way or another, but not necessarily at the level of Ender’s brilliance.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty harsh judgment. The writer goes on to describe the gentle, pacifist understanding of the buggers displayed by Ender at the end of the book, and writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m inclined to agree. The ending of the book, although lovely and powerful, is not powerful enough to negate the promotion of violence and vengeance that has gone before. Ender is a hero to young readers. Is he a hero because of his angst, because he is conflicted about the murders he has committed? No, he’s a hero because he is awesome in battle and a slayer of bullies. If Card were truly writing an anti-war parable, he would be crying at his readers’ glorification of Ender’s violent actions. But I think he’s only crying all the way to the bank, as they say.</p>
<p>The sub-title of the Salon article is, “’Ender’s Game’ essentially argues that mass killing can be not just good, but almost holy.”</p>
<p>Again, I don’t think this is a far-fetched idea. Ender is held up as the Savior of the world. He is the Christ Child. Textually, this is underscored when his mother prays over him in bed, “Think not that I am come to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword” (p. 171). Those are Jesus’ words (Matthew 10:34). I’m no theologian, but I’m darn sure that fulfilling one’s destiny by taking countless lives was not what Jesus meant. I was bothered by the context into which Card placed that quote. (Also, as an aside–a shout-out to celesteroberts in post #53: It occurs to me that this scene with Ender’s mother can be viewed as one of the subtle clues indicating that she is smarter than she appears and is preparing Ender for the life of conflict that awaits him.)</p>
<p>Mary13, yes a lot of conflicting ideas there! But while Card perhaps comes out on the wrong side (IMO) that genocide can be justified, I don’t think every reader does. I think he’s given us enough rope to let us think and come to our own conclusions, even as we cheered Ender on as he fulfilled all our fantasies about destroying the bullies of the world.</p>