<p>Very insightful, ignatius… :)</p>
<p>I am heading out of town for a little over a week. I’ll try to keep up, but my posting time will be limited. :(</p>
<p>I never thought Card was justifying xenocide, but was showing how easy it is to let fear bring us to the point where we justify xenocide.
There was real concern by the end of the book, that Ender, the hero, would not be safe on Earth, once people realized the horror of what he had done in our name, because we asked him to. If you read the Ender sequels, you see it is not long before history refers to him as Ender The Xenocide, and it isn’t a compliment.
If you read the Shadow sequels, which follow the political developments on postwar Earth, you can see how quickly the united Earth devolves to nationalism, and how fearful the leaders are of the other children from Ender’s team in the Battle School.</p>
<p>The book gave some interesting scenarios. Peter and Val’s blogs showed how easy it might be for only two people to sway the masses and how individuals can make a difference.
The government with good intentions (save the world) dominated all aspects of the people (population control being the main one)–how much do we relinquish individuality for the “greater good”. And who should decide? What are the boundaries?
One constant was always Ender wondering if he was “good or evil”. He was both–the perfect combo of Peter and Val.
Intellect vs brute force. Which one wins and under what circumstances?
Fear and ignorance as motivating factors–are they justified?
I think the book was extremely thought provoking which is very different from political agenda.</p>
<p>
This is a common problem in anti-war science fiction - the cinematic version of Starship Troopers was supposed to satirize militarism, but did more to glorify it than anything else. Haldemans’ The Forever War is a rare exception.</p>
<p>
I agree with this only by observing unique characteristics of the two examples. The Daleks are themselves actively and intractably seeking the genocide of all other races. The Weeping Angels apparently require the consumption (of sorts) of intelligent life to survive. In both cases, every single member of the race is dedicated (by conditioning or biological need) to killing other races, a very specific and unusual situation even in fiction.</p>
<p>^^^
True … but ever justified does have to be considered. ;)</p>
<p>
Sure… but if the justification itself is dependent on specific factors then it is meaningless unless those factors are addressed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that puts a different spin on things. However, I only felt that there was concern (by Valentine) that Ender would not be safe because of Peter. I don’t think it is clear at the end of Ender’s Game that public sentiment will make such a dramatic shift. On the contrary, we’re told:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He’s not merely a hero at the end, he’s a demigod. The two books he writes lead to the establishment of a religion, and they are considered “holy writ” (p. 323).</p>
<p>The only subtle clue I could find that this adulation would pass was the italicized they in the above quoted paragraph. It suggests that although his devoted fans adore him, there are others who don’t – and apparently (given what MZBkiya has said), that contingent grows in numbers in subsequent books.</p>
<p>
I disagree. That only happened because Ender wrote The Hive Queen - he would have continued to be a hero (and a real thorn in Peter’s side) if he hadn’t.</p>
<p>I don’t want to give short shrift to H.G. Wells in this discussion, so let me just segue here by saying that the artillery man would be pleased to know that in Ender’s world, post-war colonists are living in tunnels. And the Time Traveller in The Time Machine, after so much grief from his peers, would feel vindicated to learn about Ender’s use of relativistic speed travel.</p>
<p>The necessity and/or atrocity of genocide is a theme in The War of the Worlds as well as in Ender’s Game. There are two schools of thought expressed in Wells’ novel. The troops say:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The narrator, however, steps back and takes a broader view:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He reiterates this idea that aliens and humans are of equal value (or worthlessness) later in the book. When the curate says, “All our work undone, all the work— What are these Martians?”, the narrator answers, “What are we?”</p>
<p>Thanks, ignatius, for the map and information on the Woking statues! (One of my sons just told me he’d seen pictures of the Martian statue because the McLaren Formula 1 racing team is located in Woking and they like to pose with it.)</p>
<p>Turns out there’s also a Martian landing memorial in New Jersey!
[1938</a> Martian Landing Site Monument, Princeton Junction, New Jersey](<a href=“http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/2749]1938”>Martian Landing Site Monument, Grovers Mill, New Jersey)</p>
<p>Like BUandBC82, I listened to War of the Worlds, after finding the print tough going. Then I found a recording of the Orson Welles broadcast and listened to that. Especially considering it was live radio, it’s amazing. And pretty scary. If you came in during the middle, I can see how it could frighten you, with no “nets” to research if it was true or not.</p>
<p>MZBkiya
</p>
<p>I agree with this. As for the sexism and portrayal of women, yes, there aren’t any women and Petra gets tired (but still does much better than most). But I didn’t find Valentine stereotypically nurturing. She was the bridge–the brilliant, philosophical one, who could convince both brothers to do things. She could write better than Peter, and changed what he became. Whether you like the outcome or not, she changed Ender, too. I’d like a sequel written from HER perspective.</p>
<p>My boys love Ender’s Game–one has read it Many, Many times–so reading it was really interesting for me–sort of a window into their world. We’re still having discussions about it. Neither one likes Card’s politics, and they’re both peaceful types, so it’s not glorification of violence that’s the draw.</p>
<p>I don’t read much science fiction so maybe this is common, but I’m amazed at how well Card’s description of the nets (message boards like CC!) and desks (iPads!) and other things match up with what developed. Val and Peter essentially started blogs that got picked up by Huffington Post or Drudge. “With false names, on the right nets, they could be anybody.” Was all of that in the 1977 story, or not added till 1985?</p>
<p>Hi buenavista! I like your description of Valentine. </p>
<p>As far as stereotyping goes, I can’t decide how I feel about this passage in the book: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the one hand, it seems so dismissive of women in combat—plenty of whom exist and serve brilliantly. On the other hand, let’s face it: We ARE more peaceful than our male counterparts. Nature or nurture?</p>
<p>I never even thought about the visionary aspect of Ender’s Game, in terms of the nets and the desk. As I read the book, I was thinking of it as a contemporary novel, forgetting that we’ve advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 35 years. </p>
<p>I don’t know about the changes from 1977 to 1985; however, this is interesting–but is it true? </p>
<p>[orson</a> scott card - How does the 1991 edition of Ender’s Game differ from the 1985 edition? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange](<a href=“How does the 1991 edition of Ender's Game differ from the 1985 edition? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange”>How does the 1991 edition of Ender's Game differ from the 1985 edition? - Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange)</p>
<p>I have the 1991 edition and it has the original, more offensive text … I admit I was startled to see the N-word and the other less than PC descriptions in this dialogue, but I figured it was Card’s way of making juvenile boys seem…juvenile.</p>
<p>What version do the rest of you have?</p>
<p>I have the 1991 edition but I knew changes have been made since.</p>
<p>Here’s the original novelette “Ender’s Game”</p>
<p>[Short</a> Stories by Orson Scott Card - Ender’s Game](<a href=“http://www.hatrack.com/osc/stories/enders-game.shtml]Short”>Short Stories by Orson Scott Card - Ender's Game)</p>
<p>and Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds radio broadcast</p>
<p><a href=“Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. - YouTube”>Orson Welles - War Of The Worlds - Radio Broadcast 1938 - Complete Broadcast. - YouTube;
<p>“they’re both peaceful types, so it’s not a glorification of Violence that’s the draw” post 111</p>
<p>I didn’t see the book as a glorification of violence. Pretty much the opposite. It’s very much a book about bullies and how to handle them. The question is what needs to happen for survival for both the individual and society. The violence question was what was acceptable for self-defense when faced with a brutal aggressor. Can you rely on others for protection? Better to take care of yourself? Hope the aggressor learns a lesson and reforms? And the last battle’s reality and the previous boy’s deaths were kept secret from Ender in the fear that his morality would keep him from acting when needed at the end. He was kept from learning from his actions. The book didn’t answer all those questions–they just brought up the questions which is why it makes for such good discussion. The fact that the “buggers” turn out to be peaceful in the end is the real twist.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But this is exactly one of the things that bothered me about the book. Bullies must be either brutally murdered (Stilson and Bonzo) or seriously incapacitated (the boy who harasses Ender on the shuttle). That seems to be the lesson on how to “handle” them. Terminate with extreme prejudice, lest they survive and become amoral power-hungry dictators like Peter. </p>
<p>The bullies in the book are treated like the buggers, as a “race” to be wiped out for the protection of society. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is true. Since morality was an impediment to the ultimate goal of the operation, I wonder whether Peter might not have been the better choice. After all, he proved that he wasn’t merely a hothead, but had the self-discipline and creativity required to achieve a long term goal. It’s ironic: Ender was chosen because he had a better developed moral sense than Peter, but in order to succeed, that morality had to be squelched.</p>
<p>Mary 13:
Valentine and–we learn at the end–the hive queen are certainly some of the more peaceful ones. But I also think what looks like dismissiveness of women’s combat skills is really more plot convenience. He describes a place where lots of boys are running around naked half the time. Having more than a token girl in the story would change the dynamic and he’d have to address it. That’s a good reason for having both men and women around together in real life, but this is fiction, and Card had other themes in mind.</p>
<p>For my sons, the appeal of the book is less the violence (although I think they liked the video game aspect), than the theme of powerlessness that mathmom mentioned:
I can see the appeal of Ender (and the other children) for the middle-schooler: not sure who he is, where he fits in, what he believes; insecure, quick to respond angrily, and pushed here and there by adults who don’t really know him, for their own purposes.</p>
<p>I looked up “ansible” in Wikipedia, and Card wasn’t the first to describe this instant-messaging device; Ursula Le Guin apparently coined it in 1966, and the concept appears in other books, too. And now Siemens gives us “Project Ansible”!
[Meet</a> Project Ansible | Project Ansible](<a href=“http://www.siemens-enterprise.com/projectansible/us]Meet”>http://www.siemens-enterprise.com/projectansible/us)</p>
<p>Thanks for the original novelette link, ignatius. The prescient computer-type stuff doesn’t really show up there; it would have been easier to imagine by 1985.</p>
<p>I was on the Arpanet in 1978 playing Asteroid’s on the computer’s of the college downriver from us. So an academic in the early 80s certainly had the tools to imagine the university nets being expanded, but it’s still impressive. I always thought it was cute that LeGuin’s ansible is so useful an idea that many other sci-fi authors have ended up using it and tipping their hat so to speak to her by keeping her name for the device.</p>
<p>Did anyone else notice the lack of names in the Wells book? I thought that was an interesting question - mostly because it seemed to me that the more important characters had no names, while less important ones were given names - just the opposite of normal practice. It kind of reminded me of* Ragtime* where no one in the family gets a name even though everyone else does. My theory is that they are supposed to be more everyman types by not being named.</p>
<p>mary13 -
</p>
<p>I am still reading Enders Game, and Mary13’s comment hit a nerve with me.
I can’t stop thinking about ** Adam Lanza and the Newtown Tragedy. **</p>
<p>SJCM, I can see how you would make that connection – it ties in on several levels. Bullying is one (in such tragedies, is the killer a bully? Or did he become what he was because he himself was bullied?) and the other, at least for me, is that Stilson was the same age as the Newtown victims (six).</p>
<p>Remember how Orson Scott Card said that there were plenty of literary games in the book for those who wanted to look for them? (For example, buenavista has already pointed out that “ansible” is a nod to Ursula LeGuin.) Every time I read the name “Stilson” in Ender’s Game, I couldn’t help but think of Greg Stillson from Stephen King’s The Dead Zone. Greg Stillson was the bully to end all bullies, and the hero, John Smith (who can see the future), determines that Stilson must be killed before he commits his most heinous crime. Stillson has to die not because of what he has done, but because of what he will do. I see this idea playing out in Ender’s Game, but among children rather than adults.</p>
<p>Re The War of the Worlds:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, and H.G. Wells didn’t really care much for Everyman, did he? As mentioned earlier, the narrator is not particularly heroic. He’s not above using his fists on the curate and he is a bit of a snob, writing of the artillery man, “In the days before the invasion no one would have questioned my intellectual superiority to his” (p. 150). The curate is insufferable, and the artillery man, although full of interesting ideas, turns out to be mostly talk: “‘Oh, one can’t always work,’ he said, and in a flash I saw the man plain” (p. 153). There is not a great deal of nobility to be found among Wells’ characters, with the possible exception of the narrator’s brother and Miss Elphinstone.</p>