quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Okay, another spelling thing: is "cooky" vs. "cookie" a regional thing?

---

Yes, mostly.
 

---

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
 
Kind of like you all and ya'll
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
errr...does chapter 5 seem a trifle unrealistic to anyone else?

I mean, without spoilers, I have quite a bit of difficulty believing that anyone, especially those characters, would think or talk about most of the things from that chapter after what happened.
 

---

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
 
Wow, if the first five chapters are already starting controversy (sp?) thent hat rest of book is definitely a worth while read.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'd be interested and terribly suprised to know that anyone else besides you found that insulting Zotto!
 

---

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
 
No just adding useless banter to the boards, sorry if I intruded.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
B,
That comment was intended for Zotto!, not you. I'm not sure I'm seeing the controversy though.
 

---

Posted by B34N (Member # 9597) on :
 
There isn't any. That's why I said useles banter. Sorry, it sounded like you two were at odds with eachother for a second but it sounds like your actually agreeing with eachother. I am going to read the chapters this weekend to have time to soak it all in, I kind of just want to wait to read it though. It would be horrible to get really involved and then have to wait 2 1/2 months to get the rest of the story. I'm so impatient that way about my books.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Zotto,
No worries. I don't generally ask rhetorical questions.

You really didn't find reflections on the whole walking/gas usage thing and then the kvetch session about how Europeans suck to be jarringly unrealistic? I really couldn't picture myself or anyone I know behaving anything like that at that time.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
To me, there was no tension to those parts. Considering some pretty heavy things just went down and these two guys are stuck in the middle of it and need to figure a way out, I didn't see how structured musing about irrelevant states of the world worked at all or made any sense. Also, it seemed like the lines between the characters blurred quite a bit, with Cole doing the historical musings that, even if it made sense, would have been coming for Malek.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Do we really have to worry about spoiling the ending of the first five chapters, which are posted conveniently on the internet?

Anyway, I guess it didn't seem unrealistic because it does take a long time to walk from the White House to Arlington. Though I suppose a description of the distance/time might be helpful. But I guess the discussion about the relationship of people with their cars and the segue into Oil and the Middle East was supposed to accomplish that. I wonder how that scene will pan out in the FPS game

I was just very impressed with his solution to the question of how the war gets started, which I had been really puzzled over (for the reasons Malek outlined) from first hearing about the premise of this book.

P.P.S. It wasn't news that the guy was screwed. He was waiting for it, which is why his wife was worried about him and why he was where he was. In such a circumstance, I would expect him to be relieved. And as his material responses show, he was prepared for such an eventuality.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I figured that it being the first days, I'd have to at least mark it with spoiler tags, which sounded like more of a hassle than being a little vague.

Also, there's a huge, very obvious hole in this:

quote:

---

It wasn't news that the guy was screwed. He was waiting for it, which is why his wife was worried about him and why he was where he was. In such a circumstance, I would expect him to be relieved. And as his material responses show, he was prepared for such an eventuality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zotto!:
My apologies if I misread your intent, Squick. In my experience, people tend to use the "um" or "er" opening when they're asking sarcastic rhetorical questions, the answers to which they're trying to imply should be obvious. Your post still reads that way to me, but it wouldn't be the first time I've read someone's intent incorrectly.

---

I don't usually use "um" and "er" that way. If you see them from me, you can bet I'm probably genuinely concerned or confused.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
I have to say, as a definite liberal who winces when I'm reading "World Watch" (when I read it, which is not always), I was completely able to stomach the first five chapters. There were times when my brain would have objected had it not been a novel, but it being a novel, I was able to accept the thoughts as the characters' points of views, flawed though I thought some of their assumptions might be.

Hey, at least it was better written than Ayn Rand. The style makes a huge difference.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I don't usually use "um" and "er" that way. If you see them from me, you can bet I'm probably genuinely concerned or confused.

---

quote:

---

So yeah a civil war would be possible.

---

Which American culture would you want to win a bloody culture war?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
"Cooky" and "adrenalin" are not misspellings; they are regional variants (and you will find both as acceptable spellings in any dictionary).

"Asplode" however, was misspelled.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

So yeah a civil war would be possible.

---

Which American culture would you want to win a bloody culture war?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
"Cooky" and "adrenalin" are not misspellings; they are regional variants (and you will find both as acceptable spellings in any dictionary).

---

I didn't say they were; just that they gave me pause.

Just pointing that out.
 

---

Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
 
I liked it. At times it seemed like the "points" were layed on a bit thick, but it was just sort of a vague feeling I got. I can definately see me inhaling this book.

One thing I noticed was in the first chapter it says "The Americans got directions from him and strode out of the camp ...". Is this referring to a camp the Americans had outside the village? I thought they were staying in the village.

Also, "Princeton University as an alien planet. Reuben Malek as the astronaut who somehow lost his helmet -- and spent day after day gasping for air." Is that supposed to be "as an alien planet"? Looking at it again I guess it makes sense, but it was a bit jarring when I first read it.
 

---

Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
I liked it, and I enjoyed OSC's characterization and humanizing of the various players.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
I'm still reading...but I'm tickled that he's using the name 'Cecily.' That just happens to be my first name! (Thanks to Zotto for pointing that out.)
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Narnia:
I'm still reading...but I'm tickled that he's using the name 'Cecily.' That just happens to be my first name! (Thanks to Zotto for pointing that out.)

---

 

---

Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
 
mph...what's with the angry face?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Oh, she knows.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Ok Porter. You pointed it out too. *pat pat*
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I think I was just pwned.
 

---

Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm still reading...but I'm tickled that he's using the name 'Cecily.' That just happens to be my first name! [Big Grin] (Thanks to Zotto for pointing that out.)

---

You didn't know your own first name until Zotto pointed it out?
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
talk about being pwned Porter?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ketchupqueen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
"Cooky" and "adrenalin" are not misspellings; they are regional variants (and you will find both as acceptable spellings in any dictionary).

---

I didn't say they were; just that they gave me pause.

Just pointing that out.

---

I wasn't responding to you.

I was responding to the jumble-of-letters-and-numbers guy.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Oh, all right. 'Cause I know you want your Stargate, so you want to stay on my good side.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
But it's true!
 

---

Posted by Roger Parkinson (Member # 7394) on :
 
I also felt the style he used was a little preachy and awkward considering the circumstances. I am forced to agree with Squicky. That being said, I will pick up the book when it comes out and finish it in one day.

I noticed a similar pattern in writing evolution from Tom Clancy. His last couple of books although riveting, have a few items that I found jarring.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

You may want to go back and check who the viewpoint character for chapter 5 is.

---

quote:

---

...notice that Malek uses 'zip' rather than the sensible aught or 'oh' a normal person uses...

---

My friends and I use "zip" all the time (although whether we're normal or not is an entirely different question). But "aught"? No one says "aught" anymore!
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
They really ought to.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

You first, Tom.

---

quote:

---

Which I supposed you could call not fighting.

---

Disarming "by any means necessary" is, by definition, not not fighting.

The whole point of a culture war is that people think their culture is so worth preserving that they'll protect it by "any means necessary."

"Any means necessary" is the problem, not the solution.
 

---

Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
 

quote:

---

She laughed. "Come out to the house. I'm a cooky-baking wife and it's summer vacation. Chocolate chips or snickerdoodles?"

---

Is this a play on the words "cookie" and "kooky" or just "cookie" with a different spelling?
 

---

Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
 
rivka: "Asplode" however, was misspelled. [Wink]

Dang you rivka!!! I caught that immediately. It was originally in a Strong Bad e-mail http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail94.html Oh well, there goes my chance to be acknowledged by Mr. Card in the back of the book for contributing to it.

Jesse
 

---

Posted by Surveyor 2 (Member # 347) on :
 
I am rather bewildered. As I feared, too much propagandism, over-simplyfying and cheap comparisons.

An example: "Once Serbs and Croats had been the same people. But the Turks had long ruled Serbia, while Croatia was sheltered within Catholic Austria-Hungary. What did Croats know of oppression and suffering?"

Really? When? Only as other Slavs. And were there no religious issues? Austria-Hungary was a kind of haven? Why, then, was it called the Prison of Nations, fighting against the inner dissent all the time?

"The discussion moved on from there into a discussion of the Soviet Union and how eagerly the subject peoples shrugged off the Russian yoke at the first opportunity."

One of the differences: Rome has brought the progress and culture, though different. Soviets have brought unculture and backwardness.

"Can you imagine what Rome would have done if an 'ally' treated them the way France and Germany have been treating the United States?"
The class laughed.

And I shiver, considering the discussions about the new US missile base on our territory. If an ally means a groveller.

The book seems to be too politic for me.
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Haven't read the whole thread yet ... just a couple of things:

1. Thanks for catching the inconsistency about what Cole is wearing. It'll be fixed in the copy edit.

2. I'm not the only person in the world who has noticed that the university establishment is leftist. It's hardly a sign that the character will faithfully represent my point of view throughout. Or am I obligated somehow to make sure all my characters see everything differently from me? What you're REALLY seeing is that this is the first novel I've written that is (a) contemporary and (b) centered around political and military issues. My beliefs are going to come up along with everybody else's. When you're dealing with military culture, you're more likely to find people who are politically aware and discuss political things.

But it's unusual for contemporary fiction these days to include sympathetic characters who have anything other than perfectly p.c. attitudes. In novel after novel, only vile and stupid characters believe in the war on terror, for instance, while all right-thinking characters call Bush a liar routinely. It's quite annoying. In this case, however, it would be absurd for me to populate the U.S. military with people who have contempt for national defense. <grin>

I'll be back to read the rest of the thread soon ...
 

---

Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
 
For everyone complaining that Mr. Card's viewpoint of most universities being leftist is wrong, I want to share an experience I had.

Before I transferred to the Colorado School of Mines, I had to take an environmental ethics class at the community college I was going to. The professor actually put in his syllabus that he was very liberal and would approach the subject from that perspective and that we disagreed to please speak up as he could learn something too. I happen to be extremly conservative and very outspoken, so quite often the class turned into a discussion between us with a few others occasionally contributing.

Towards the end of the semester, I was talking to my professor about taking a semester or two off from studying engineering to study philosophy. He told me that if I did that, I should go to a conservative college like BYU. I asked him why and he replied that while everything I said was well thought out and didn't contain any logical flaws, I would have a hard time at a liberal college because of my point of view. He even warned me that I might even get lower grades than I deserved because I disagreed with the teacher's viewpoint. He found the entire situation sad and felt it did a disservice to everyone involved as prevented both the students and professors from learning and growing from hearing differing perspectives.

Here is an article from the Washington Post last year discussing this issue too: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html

Jesse
 

---

Posted by Edgehopper (Member # 1716) on :
 
And in particular, as a Princeton B.S.E., I'll vouch for his description. There were rare Torrent-like exceptions, but most precepts/seminars in humanities classes were just as described in chapter 2.
 

---

Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Haven't read the whole thread yet ... just a couple of things:

1. Thanks for catching the inconsistency about what Cole is wearing. It'll be fixed in the copy edit.

2. I'm not the only person in the world who has noticed that the university establishment is leftist. It's hardly a sign that the character will faithfully represent my point of view throughout. Or am I obligated somehow to make sure all my characters see everything differently from me? What you're REALLY seeing is that this is the first novel I've written that is (a) contemporary and (b) centered around political and military issues. My beliefs are going to come up along with everybody else's. When you're dealing with military culture, you're more likely to find people who are politically aware and discuss political things.

But it's unusual for contemporary fiction these days to include sympathetic characters who have anything other than perfectly p.c. attitudes. In novel after novel, only vile and stupid characters believe in the war on terror, for instance, while all right-thinking characters call Bush a liar routinely. It's quite annoying. In this case, however, it would be absurd for me to populate the U.S. military with people who have contempt for national defense. <grin>

I'll be back to read the rest of the thread soon ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
I wonder what some of you think people think and talk about after a crisis when the adrenalin rush is over. People who have just exerted themselves physically and emotionally don't talk about how horrible it was or how emotional it was; most of them, especially trained soldiers, don't cry or gasp or any of those things. That comes later, in the nightmares. Often they turn their minds away to controllable subjects. OFten they turn ahead to analyze what is really going on, and what the next danger is going to be. Or they try to figure out and understand what the actions they just went through meant and will mean.

In short, I'm wondering what you think people who have been through life-threatening crises, in which they failed to prevent something awful from happening, think about and talk about with each other? Especially when they are combat-experienced soldiers who think of themselves as still being in peril and needing to know where the next danger is coming from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Icec0o1 - I'm glad to see that unlike Reuben Malek, you are open-minded and nonjudgmental, and that you are able to accept the idea that other people might disagree with you and still be worth knowing. Oh, wait - it's Malek who gets to know people who disagree with him ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icec0o1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Icec0o1 - I'm glad to see that unlike Reuben Malek, you are open-minded and nonjudgmental, and that you are able to accept the idea that other people might disagree with you and still be worth knowing. Oh, wait - it's Malek who gets to know people who disagree with him ...

---

What? Are you serious with this reply? I'm one of the most open-minded and nonjudgmental person you could ever meet. My earlier post was for no other reason than to warn you that you'll alienate a lot of people with that second chapter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vadon:
Icec0o1, I'd suggest you just kind of back away from this problem and look at what you've been saying. You're offended by someone who has a negative view of people like you. Yet you claim you're open-minded, one of the most open-minded people out there. I'd say that if you really want to show your being open-minded just say you disagree, but can accept that characters point of view, even if it's narrow minded. After all, isn't being open-minded acknowledging views different from your own?

What I'd suggest is stop judging Malek and OSC as narrow-minded pricks who are stuck to their views. A point of a novel is to allow for character development, who knows, maybe Malek will have a change of heart through the novel, we've only seen five chapters.

And now I'm going to high-tail out of this thread.

---

First of all, don't high-tail out of this thread. I think I have a point and would like to get it across and would appreciate more comments and criticism back towards me instead of sarcastic replies. Not backing down doesn't mean I'm not open minded.

Here's a summary of my point because I think you misunderstood me, and possibly Card did as well.

I never said anything remotely close to OSC and Malek being "narrow-minded pricks who are stuck to their views" and I don't know where you got that from. I never said OSC's work on this book sucks, has views that are wrong, is purposefully being offensive towards liberals, or anything negative at all. Please, if you see where I gave anything but respect for him, quote it so I can understand my mistake.

The only problem that I had was the way OSC used excessive and unnecessary language to depict Reuben Malek hatred of liberals, calling them crazy, willfully ignorant, bigoted, stuck to their predetermined beliefs, and his enemies. (And is arguing that his character is open minded?)

Moreover, he did it in a narrative tone ("Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? ... But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not.") This tone made it feel more like it was the author's opinion more so than the character's. (Notice the difference between the question “Am I like them” and the answer “No, he was not.” I would think ‘No, I’m not’ would serve the same purpose and be less offensive. The former implies outside absolute approval of his beliefs.)

I did not find Reuben Malek beliefs that my liberal views will destroy the United States offensive, what I found offensive was the language OSC used to depict those beliefs.

[ August 12, 2006, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: Icec0o1 ]
 

---

Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
 
One last thing and I'm going to back off. I never said I was personally offended; I said that the chapter contained offensive language. My point was that the chapter caused me to temporarily lose interest in the story and my intentions were to provide a completely innocent criticism intended to help OSC if he was willing to accept it. Instead, I received a snide reply attacking my character and my good intentions. Whatever, I'm the bad guy.
 

---

Posted by Eisenoxyde (Member # 7289) on :
 
Icec0o1, can you think of at least 1 person in your school that is very leftists *and* closeminded about it? That is who Malek was comparing himself to.

I go to an engineering school and the majority of the students here are right wing. Quite a few of them are closeminded. Would I be offended if a leftist compared his/herself to the closeminded students here and found them lacking? Absolutely not! I think you should just grow a thicker skin and accept that not everyone thinks liberal/leftist ideals are the best and finds the majority of their proponents lacking.

Jesse
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
Just finished the first 5.
What a great read! Even though it does make me worry about civil war now.
Can't wait to buy the book!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

But it's unusual for contemporary fiction these days to include sympathetic characters who have anything other than perfectly p.c. attitudes.

---

quote:

---

can you think of at least 1 person in your school that is very leftists *and* closeminded about it? That is who Malek was comparing himself to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icec0o1:
First of all, don't high-tail out of this thread. I think I have a point and would like to get it across and would appreciate more comments and criticism back towards me instead of sarcastic replies. Not backing down doesn't mean I'm not open minded.

---

quote:

---

I couldn't help but be distanced from the character. I couldn't just dislike Reuben Malek as a character in a fictional novel and brush off his attacks because it felt like they were coming from you. It felt like they were a personal attack; not a feeling I would like to get from a book I'm reading for enjoyment.

---

quote:

---

I just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point.

---

I think what you said here is what made me think you were being somewhat narrow-minded. What you said here made me think that you hated the message the book conveyed and you wanted to get away from it. I also thought this is where the accusition of him and Malek being 'narrow-minded pricks'.

In the end, I see you were just trying to give a warning about his alienating the possible reader-base. I just misunderstood you, while I do think you could have been slightly more... open? on your criticism, I do know that it's my own fault for not asking for an elaboration. I went off on my assumptions, and look where it got me.

Sorry about the misunderstanding, I don't think less of you, I'd just say be careful with how you give critiques to not convey other meanings that you didn't intend.
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
Icecool, I can see where you're coming from. The tone of Malek's thoughts show a strong contempt for the liberal left. It definitely grated on me as I read it.

But, being open-minded, I do appreciate it. It gives me something to think about when I go back to classes at my Liberal University next week. I can examine my beliefs and decide whether I'm an insane, brainwashed, closed-minded liberal--or someone who has taken in as much information as possible and sorted it out to find something closer to the truth.

That's the liberal I am. I've asked myself if I'm just learning what fits my worldview. If I have been able to tell the lies from the truth. If I am just one of the "bigots" Malek is afraid he is like. Ironically, I've come to the same conclusion.

No, I am not.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
I read the first five chapters.

From Chapter Two:

quote:

---

The only question remaining was: Is Torrent a good guy? If I join whatever clandestine work he's got going, will I be on the right side?

---

These are good questions. I believe that the closer the book stays to them, the more interesting the story will be, especially if Malek has to reevaluate what it means to be a good guy. If I may, I'm not sure that you can say "only question," then rattle off two questions.

I know that the second question seems embedded in the first, but the two questions have different conditions of satisfaction, i.e., it's possible for one of the questions to be true and the other false, which makes me believe that they should be treated as two distinct questions.
____________

I can be considered an effete, liberal, intellectual, and I get a little queasy around guns. I'm so weak in my constitution, I get queasy around people who feel comfortable around guns, and I tend to slowly back away from people who feel that guns are ennobling.

I know I'm supposed to respect Malek. He protects us. He stands on a wall. He says, "Not on my watch." He kills people so that I can write on the internet and so that the US can be number one. (I don't mind being seven or eight.)

If this book is about a civil war between me and Malek, as far as I'm concerned, we already are a part of two different nations, two different polities with strong economic entanglements.

Religious differences are the stuff democracies should part ways on. I think that the Athenians understood this, metaphysical pluralism and democracy don't go together.

It's not like the red-staters are gassing blacks in Mississippi, if they want to become their own polity, think that first Amendment is slowing them down, put prayer in schools and abolish taxation, tell them to go ahead, and I wish them the peace of heaven.

[ August 12, 2006, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by Icec0o1 (Member # 8157) on :
 
Thank you for that post Vadon. I guess I did let this get under my skin a little. I just didn't see Malek's character to be believable; an intelligent war hero who has such hatred towards the liberal left that he goes as far as calling them his enemies. That's why I saw OSC's personal beliefs behind the character and the strong words that he used to portray them stung a little.

I love arguing and unlike a lot of people, I disagree that it's pointless. This is part of why I believe myself to be open-minded...because I can be persuaded through a good argument. And I always like to see the other side of things as long as they are put forth in a respectful manner and not with strong, offensive, language.

Thank you for those quotes though, I do see that they were interpreted offensively by you and OSC and I appologize for them.
 

---

Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
 
Nonsense, I too like to argue. That's why I'm in a debate program. I just don't like to do it online because there is an awful stereotype that I'm thrown into far too often where I'm just a robot scouring everything people says for one little slip up as opposed to coming to a better understanding of the issue at hand. As such, I don't express my opinions very much online. I prefer seeing how other's play out.

On the topic of the book though... I'm enjoying it too much to be bothered by any stereotypes of Malek's. I mean, come on, the whole idea of a civil war between Red States V. Blue States is a Policy Debater's wildest fantasy.
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Wow, Mr. Card responded to my aimless spelling ramblings! I actually was aware of "cooky" being the original spelling; I read a lot of Alcott and Montgomery. But I just can't shake that first-grade spelling drill.

Thank you for explaining your rationalizations for choosing your spellings, though, that was very considerate of you.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Might it be like the use of "nigger" in Ender's Game? Even if it's the logical belief of a character, could reading such a tirade so early in the book put off readers who might mistakenly believe that the whole novel will be full of anti-liberal rants?

EDIT to clarify.

[ August 13, 2006, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by Surveyor 2 (Member # 347) on :
 
Mr. Card, you are probably right that I am "reading this looking for reasons to make negative assumptions about your beliefs, instead of simply taking the characters' statements as being statements of those characters." But believe me, after some years of reading your political comments, it may be difficult not to make such assumptions, not to take the character's statements as statements of those characters, when the words used are so similar to the words you use, in the comments or even here in your explanations.
I admit I do not know the situation in US universities. If it is even half as bad as you say, it is a reason for me to be sad - and I understand it may be a reason for you and many others to be outraged.
Well, I will try to refrain from these assumptions. I will give the book a try as it is.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Tom, even when I agree, many times I don't understand the need for the full intensity of your criticisms. I think it may be a cultural thing. Most of us here, including Uncle Orson and myself, did not grow up where you did. To illustrate, I have a friend lived in Wisconsin for 2 years among young, intelligent, well-educated professionals from all over the northeast and midwest. He grew upin the rural south. He said that comments he heard that would have started fistfights in the south caused little reaction at all. People don't progress from words to fists where you live as often as elsewhere. That was his explanation for the verbal brutality that went on unchecked there. I've lived in North Carolina, Texas, and San Diego, and I've never noticed anywhere near the kind of openly cruel criticism that I have heard from you and other people our age who hail from the upper midwest and northeast.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
A couple of questions for OSC, if he feels like answering.

Is the cover art on the front page the actual cover art, or just a temporary mock-up? Is the tag "A disturbing look at a possible future" going on the cover?

Is this novel intended to be a "warning" of anything? If so, what?
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
I am so completely psyched to read the rest of this book. I knew I shouldn't have read those five chapters. I knew I'd regret it.

Is there an ETA on the book?
 

---

Posted by Orson Scott Card (Member # 209) on :
 
Here I've spent my whole career with precious few characters who in any way reflect ANY of my political views (usually because they're irrelevant to the books), and lots of characters I disagree with. No one (well, almost no one) was troubled by this.

All my characters live by some kind of moral code, or at least try to pretend to others or themselves that they do. But let me have a character who not only has a moral code that closely resembles that of the 50% of America that voted for Bush, but also has a disdainful attitude toward the in-your-face people who despise HIM for disagreeing - an attitude nowhere NEAR as hostile and patronizing as the attitudes that are regularly expressed toward me and mine on this very forum! - and suddenly I'M the one who is alienating people.

Well ... what can I say, except that I actually move back and forth between red-state and blue-state societies and know how (when I choose) to speak the language, including all the shibboleths, of both. I am at home in neither - I learn them like a foreign language, and find myself repelled by the excesses of both sides. My depiction of Reuben Malek is fair. There are plenty of people among those who lay their lives on the line to defend our country who feel themselves to be under attack by the American intellectual establishment exactly as Reuben does, and who develop the same disdain for the mindlessness of much or most of that disapproval.

What I marvel at is the inability of "open-minded" people to conceive of opposing viewpoints as having validity. I am warned that having a major character feel disdain for the intellectual establishment will "alienate" readers; but I have received identical warnings over the years because I've had sympathetically portrayed gay characters (for instance) - warnings with just the same tone of patronizing "helpfulness" offered here. Who would have trouble recognizing that warning as thinly disguised bigotry, when it comes from the Right?

It's like the poor benighted soul who posted a briefly present diatribe that claimed that Empire "proved" that I'm gay. He was incapable of recognizing that to accuse me of being gay as a way of punishing me for my politically incorrect position was, in fact, the purest bigotry. (i.e.: you can identify gay people by their writing; it's a bad thing for a writer who is "secretly gay" to create characters with politically incorrect positions, etc.) The closed-mindedness that co-exists with the insistence on the closed-minded person's open-mindedness would be funny if it weren't so sad.

There's nothing wrong with having strongly held opinions and espousing them - that's the marketplace of ideas. But to pride yourself on your open-mindedness even as you excoriate someone else for even DEPICTING a character sympathetically who disagrees with you - don't you think there would be some point where, reading their own posts, such people would say, Oh, wait a minute ... what am I doing here?

But these days the Left is as impervious to self-awareness as the Right has ever been - perhaps more so, having (as a group) control of or at least dominance in the primary institutions of culture.

It's like white people who don't actually KNOW any black people talking "knowledgeably" about what "they" want and what "they" are like; if you don't actually know any intelligent people with conservative views, then perhaps you should be cautious about your judgments of "them." Again, I assure you, conservative views have as long a history and as many brilliantly intellectual and rigorous adherents (at least) as the Left has ever had. If you don't know that, if you really think that "all intelligent people think like me," then you have, by that belief, disqualified yourself as a person educated enough to take part in the conversation. You're a cheerleader, not a player, rooting for one team but having nothing to do with what is going on out on the field.

Naturally, I mean this in the nicest possible way.

One of the surest signs of cheerleader status is the inability to conceive of people who are good players, but aren't on a "team." Likewise the inability to recognize moderate views when they are presented - if they differ AT ALL from one's own, they are anathema. Those who don't understand the rightwing extremists' views enough to recognize instantly (as those conservatives do) that I am not one of them really have no business hurling the epithet of "extremist" at people like me.

Look at how some of the people posting here are intolerant of ANY deviance from their views. What they believe is true; all other views are "extremist" - they see no gradation in degree of disagreement. This is black-and-white thinking - it is fanatical thinking - and when it also includes an unwillingness to do periodic reality checks, just to see if there ARE positions that don't agree with oneself ...

Oh, why do I bother?

The truth is, the more outraged people are, the more controversial the book will be and the better it will sell. So rail on! Attack the book! EVERY WORD YOU SAY along those lines merely demonstrates the points the book depends on: That the voices of extremism in America today are so blindly hate-filled that they cannot recognize the possibility of intelligence or virtue on the other side - particularly when they have NO experience with people who hold contrary views.

It's like the extremism of the pro- and anti-abortion "teams" in America. The pro- group cannot conceive of the idea that many or most of their opponents are not hypocrites and have no desire to oppress women - they truly believe that every fetus, ESPECIALLY those well-advanced in gestation, is a genetically independent organism and civilized people should treat it with at least as much respect as we render to, say, spotted barn owls. And on the other side, I find a complete unwillingness to recognize that many people who respect life very much believe that it's nobody's business but the mother to make the ultimate decision about which circumstances are appropriate for terminating a pregnancy.

Both sides demonize each other. Both sides seem incapable of recognizing that MOST Americans are squarely in the middle, hating how common abortion is, detesting late-term abortions, but also unwilling to criminalize abortions or ban them in the early stages. The one side looks only at the polls that show that most people oppose "banning abortions," while the other side looks only at the polls that show that most people favor "eliminating late-term abortions." Thus they can look only at the polls that give them a majority - whereas NEITHER extreme actually has majority support.

Reuben Malek is who he is. I've heard multiple soldiers express similar (or much stronger) views. Yet you want to shoot the messenger for presenting a brave, intelligent soldier as having precisely the views that many a brave intelligent soldier has in the real world.

In other words, it's OK for people like this to die in the service of their country - but it's a terrible thing to allow them to exist in our popular literature.

Isn't this very, very silly?

If someone had told me that on Hatrack I'd see reactions like that, I would have laughed. No, I would have said, the people who come to Hatrack understand that fiction will show characters representing the full range of society and present them fairly, in their own terms.

But since the Left has such complete dominance of our elite culture, these poor souls really are shocked to see anything like the full range of political views sympathetically expressed.

Here's a clue: You don't know, from the first five chapters, who the bad guys are ... or how bad they are, or what makes them bad, or what views the good guys will have, or what victory for either side would mean. There is a polarity in this novel, but these comments show that you aren't even open-minded enough to wait to find out what they are!

I speak, of course, of those whose writings put them in the category I'm describing. I'm quite aware of those who are open-minded enough to take the characters for who they are and wait to see how it will go ...

Enough. Enough. I have a review column to write. I just finished yet another series of revisions in the Ender's Game screenplay. Life goes on, despite the teapots that have tempests in them.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
But let me have a character who not only has a moral code that closely resembles that of the 50% of America that voted for Bush, but also has a disdainful attitude toward the in-your-face people who despise HIM for disagreeing - an attitude nowhere NEAR as hostile and patronizing as the attitudes that are regularly expressed toward me and mine on this very forum! - and suddenly I'M the one who is alienating people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
It's like the poor benighted soul who posted a briefly present diatribe that claimed that Empire "proved" that I'm gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Those who don't understand the rightwing extremists' views enough to recognize instantly (as those conservatives do) that I am not one of them really have no business hurling the epithet of "extremist" at people like me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
It's like the extremism of the pro- and anti-abortion "teams" in America.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
If someone had told me that on Hatrack I'd see reactions like that, I would have laughed. No, I would have said, the people who come to Hatrack understand that fiction will show characters representing the full range of society and present them fairly, in their own terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Enough. Enough. I have a review column to write. I just finished yet another series of revisions in the Ender's Game screenplay. Life goes on, despite the teapots that have tempests in them.

---

quote:

---

I am warned that having a major character feel disdain for the intellectual establishment will "alienate" readers; . . .

---

quote:

---

The only question remaining was: Is Torrent a good guy? If I join whatever clandestine work he's got going, will I be on the right side?

---

quote:

---

Look at how some of the people posting here are intolerant of ANY deviance from their views.

---

quote:

---

What I marvel at is the inability of "open-minded" people to conceive of opposing viewpoints as having validity. I am warned that having a major character feel disdain for the intellectual establishment will "alienate" readers;

---

quote:

---

But to pride yourself on your open-mindedness even as you excoriate someone else for even DEPICTING a character sympathetically who disagrees with you

---

quote:

---

Oh, why do I bother?

The truth is, the more outraged people are, the more controversial the book will be and the better it will sell. So rail on! Attack the book! EVERY WORD YOU SAY along those lines merely demonstrates the points the book depends on: That the voices of extremism in America today are so blindly hate-filled that they cannot recognize the possibility of intelligence or virtue on the other side - particularly when they have NO experience with people who hold contrary views.

---

quote:

---

Mr. Card, you absolutely took my posts too emotionally.

---

quote:

---

... just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point. One of the few things that helped me brush that assault towards my beliefs was my respect for Donald Mustard as well as towards you, although it seems we have strong differences on political and religious views.

---

quote:

---

...since most of those bashes were done as a narrative and I know your beliefs on the subject, I couldn't help but be distanced from the character. I couldn't just dislike Reuben Malek as a character in a fictional novel and brush off his attacks because it felt like they were coming from you.

---

quote:

---

just reread the part and I have to say again that that's some of the most offensive language I've ever read. I would expect something like that in an Ann Coulter book, but not from OSC...

---

Who is taking whose posts too emotionally?

How was Scott supposed to write a career soldier attending Princeton? Malek is representative of LOTS of the soldiers I work with. And more than that, OSC explains Malek's prejudices and shows us how he justifies them. Your objections reveal Scott's point-- you hate the idea that someone disagrees with your political leanings so much you can't see your way to opening your mind that they might have a reason for disagreeing.

Did people at Princeton mistreat Malek? According to the text (which is all we have to go on) yes they did. Why? Because he was a soldier, according to the text (which is all we have to go on).

quote:

---

All I wanted was for a possible change of a few sentences in the 2nd chapter so your character, Malek, wouldn’t be as insulting as you made him out to be. You could easily depict his utmost hatred towards the “loony left” without being as strongly offensive towards it.

---

I think that when people read something written by someone they know they have a political disagreement with, they look for things that bolster and reinforce that division. What was Malek's main problem with Princeton? It wasn't the politics. It was the way people treated him, and other students' tendency to "remain ignorant of any real-world data that didn't fit their preconceived notions."

Nothing about politics, there.
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
ScottR, you don't get to paint Icec0o1 as the Villain, lest he(I'll say "he") believe that he actually did something wrong.

He spouted clear, half-formed opinions that were completely within the bounds of decency and responsibility.

Icec0o1,

My advise is that you don't respond to me. Don't respond to ScottR. You didn't do anything wrong. You don't need to explain yourself; your other posts do a fine job. You are set-up to be a scapegoat. ScottR is giving you some rope in hope that you'll hang yourself with denial, repudiation, acceptance, or a clever cocktail of all three, which will vindicate what can easily be considered an over-reaction by our esteemed host.

Have you read the Game of Thrones? (Remember, don't answer) But if you haven't, you should, it's a nice breezy read. Half-way through the first book, Ned kills an innocent wolf in order to protect the good name of his puerile nephew. Right now, you are the sacrificial wolf.

I'm asking you to dig deep and ignore the bait. And in the spirit of practicing what I preach, this will be my last post on this subject.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

ScottR is giving you some rope in hope that you'll hang yourself with denial, repudiation, acceptance, or a clever cocktail of all three, which will vindicate what can easily be considered an over-reaction by our esteemed host.

---

quote:

---

Your objections reveal Scott's point-- you hate the idea that someone disagrees with your political leanings so much you can't see your way to opening your mind that they might have a reason for disagreeing.

---

quote:

---

To my worldview, with my experience, it makes sense that a soldier, or anyone who'd had Malek's experiences, would feel this way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
He spouted clear, half-formed opinions that were completely within the bounds of decency and responsibility.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
In any case, I don't see where Malek or OSC-as-Malek HAS insulted liberals.

---

quote:

---

I just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point. One of the few things that helped me brush that assault towards my beliefs was my respect for Donald Mustard as well as towards you, although it seems we have strong differences on political and religious views.

---

quote:

---

I just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point. One of the few things that helped me brush that assault towards my beliefs was my respect for Donald Mustard as well as towards you, although it seems we have strong differences on political and religious views.

---

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that this evidences an instinctive revulsion to someone expressing an opposing viewpoint. I think that this evidences an instinctive revulsion to someone expressing any viewpoint in a way that paints so many people with such a broad brush and in such an ugly color. An instinctive revulsion, may I point out, that Icec0o1 managed to get over (hence the "almost" closed the browser window, as opposed to "and I stopped reading right there") to go on to enjoy the first five chapters of this book. The point wasn't "OMG, OSC wrote a book with a sympathetic character who doesn't agree with liberals!", it was "Wow, OSC wrote a book with a section that contains pretty offensive language when talking about liberal college students by having one sympathetic character calling them all close-minded and ignorant, and showed them all to be close-minded and ignorant through that character's eyes ["show, don't tell" makes sense here: it might work better to show examples of closemindedness from the students than to tell us that they were all close-minded] so that in order to believe that the sympathetic character had a case in disliking his fellow students we had to believe that he was a completely reliable, fairly objective evaluator of his fellow students, including his evaluation that there were no exceptions; and maybe OSC should consider revising that part to avoid losing readers before they can get into the story and enjoy it in spite of that part." Which is, I think, a completely different kettle of fish and should be faced in a different way.

And going back a little in the thread because I just thought of this: when Mr. Card said that it's a good thing that Icec0o1 is just like Malek in that they both get to know someone whose views they disagree with--well, I've already gone into how Icec0o1 never expressed disagreement with Malek's views, but in addition, Icec0o1 did go on to get to know Malek by continuing to read, whereas Malek might in fact be someone who does make a point to get to know someone he disagrees with (it seems in character), but in the chapters posted I can't, offhand, think of anyone he got to know even though they held a different viewpoint than he did out of that virtue. He didn't get to know the students well enough to give a name or a face or even anything happening from "one student" instead of from all the students as a group (except for "one of the wittier students" saying something, I think), and he only put up with Torrent because he had to. So...if it's to be a contest between Icec0o1 and Malek on who's more tolerant, well...but maybe I'm misreading everything. Maybe OSC didn't mean to sound sarcastic, and maybe Malek did get to know someone better despite their viewpoints for a reason other than orders (in the five chapters I've gotten to read), and maybe Icec0o1 really did hate Malek for no other reason than that they held different views. Maybe I'm just aggravating the situation by defending someone's viewpoint that the someone doesn't want defended. (I'm not defending Icec0o1, I'm defending Icec0o1's position; ideas vs. people, remember?) Maybe I should go now...

[ August 14, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Gwen ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Welcome to Hatrack, ErezL! !ברוכים הבאים

Your spelling is quite good, actually.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
But the whole point of the book is that people feel strongly enough about these viewpoints to justify a war. It's not a book about the measured discussion of ideas. It's a book about the consequences of acting on the level of discourse that has been going on for several years.
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 
But isn't Malek supposed to be the moderate, let's-not-go-to-war guy? I mean, I think he's supposed to change so maybe his utter contempt for university-attending liberal students is laying the seeds for him to go from (paraphrased) "I'd be on the side of whichever side wouldn't fight" to "kill...kill...kill" but I thought he was at least originally supposed to be a measured-discourse kind of guy. Isn't that why he hated them, anyway?
I don't know...I like him, but it's harder than maybe it needs to be with the chapter two rant. At first the Watsonian (within-the-story) explanation made as much sense as the Doylist (author-based) explanation, but with extra thought about the sort of character Malek is supposed to be, plus OSC's replies to the criticism Icec0o1 offered, I'm not quite so certain anymore.
But I am eager to be proven wrong...I wouldn't like to think that one of my favorite authors is as susceptible to emotional defensive ad hominem attacks as I am; then I'd have to think of him as a mere mortal! Please come on here and show me that this:

quote:

---

Icec0o1 - I'm glad to see that unlike Reuben Malek, you are open-minded and nonjudgmental, and that you are able to accept the idea that other people might disagree with you and still be worth knowing. Oh, wait - it's Malek who gets to know people who disagree with him ...

---

quote:

---

"But in class after class, seminar after seminar, he learned that far too many students were determined to remain ignorant of any real-world data that didn't fit their preconceived notions. And even those who tried to remain genuinely open-minded simply did not realize the magnitude of the lies they had been told about history, about values, about religion, about everything ... Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? That's what he kept asking himself. But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not."

Yep, it's definitive now. People who don't agree with him are determined to remain ignorant and he's completely right. What an open-minded person he is.

---

quote:

---

"He faced every piece of information as it came. He questioned his own assumptions whenever the information seemed to violate it. Above all, he changed his mind -- and often."

---

quote:

---

The point wasn't "OMG, OSC wrote a book with a sympathetic character who doesn't agree with liberals!", it was "Wow, OSC wrote a book with a section that contains pretty offensive language when talking about liberal college students by having one sympathetic character calling them all close-minded and ignorant, and showed them all to be close-minded and ignorant through that character's eyes ["show, don't tell" makes sense here: it might work better to show examples of closemindedness from the students than to tell us that they were all close-minded] so that in order to believe that the sympathetic character had a case in disliking his fellow students we had to believe that he was a completely reliable, fairly objective evaluator of his fellow students, including his evaluation that there were no exceptions; and maybe OSC should consider revising that part to avoid losing readers before they can get into the story and enjoy it in spite of that part." Which is, I think, a completely different kettle of fish and should be faced in a different way.

---

I agree with you here.

but

At the same time, while "show-don't-tell" generally works, I think it might make the precieved problem even worse, because the people Reuben refers to see themselves as open-minded. Assuming such people exist, the reader thinks one of three things: (a) "That's close-minded," (b) "That's a poor representation of a liberal belief, why didn't the student argue X," or (c) "Why is that a close-minded point of view?" It's a lot more slippery than using show-don't-tell when trying to show that a character is intelligent, or funny, or inquisitive, or whatever because there are people who embrace these opnions and the point will be lost on anyone who reacts with (B) or (C). Then it sounds really preachy, because everybody needs to think (A).

More space would have to be devoted to illustration the close-mindedness of the students, but the result might be a book spends an undue amount of time at Princeton, while plot supposedly takes place in the outside world. I don't think there's an easy way to handle it.

--j_k
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I've given this some thought, and I've realized that the problem I've got with this can be represented by a Venn diagram.

OSC's -- and Malek's -- "team" can be loosely defined as "people who take the time to hold correct opinions, even if it requires them to change their minds." Let's call them the "Open-Minded."

By contrast, the enemy that Malek -- and OSC -- demonizes is the one that cares so deeply about its preconcieved notions that it'll start a war rather than risk discussion, the one that refuses to even consider an opposing point of view. Let's call them the "Close-Minded." Every throwaway insult in the book is directed at this group.

But there's another axis here, operating in the background of the conversation: so-called "liberals" vs. so-called "conservatives." Lots of readers will believe themselves to be in one camp or the other. Certainly, given my personal politics, I'm "liberal" on most social issues from where OSC is standing (just as an example; I don't normally consider myself a "liberal," but believe he'd probably consider me one.)

And when you draw a quick Venn diagram of the characters (both the main characters and the quick sketches), what you discover is that pretty much all the "liberals" fall into the "Close-Minded" circle, and none of the "conservatives" do. (Of course, the "conservatives" here are actually presented as "moderates," but YMMV; I don't consider this particular axis all that useful, and am just using it as shorthand.)

So if you self-identify (or, as in my case, believe OSC would identify you) as a "liberal," the message you're going to pick up on is "all liberals are Close-Minded, and therefore by definition our Antagonists." There may well be close-minded conservatives out there in the fictional world of the novel. We don't see any, but we're free to imagine that they exist.

OSC must be aware of this on some level, given his own defense: that most mainstream fiction presents angelic, open-minded liberals and close-minded conservatives. (I'll point out again that this is not the case for this genre, the political thriller, but will leave it at that.) If this is consciously reactionary, that's fine; the chapters work as slightly inflammatory fiction. If it's meant to reflect OSC's belief that the American left is more of a threat to Open-Minded People than the right, that's also fine -- but he should expect that to dismay those of his readers who disagree with him on that point but otherwise value his opinion.

If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.

I think this is what causes the mental disconnect for a lot of liberal OSC fans. They read one of his criticisms of the Left and think, "Man, I'm not like that at all. I'm one of the Open-Minded People." And maybe they're correct; maybe they are one of the Open-Minded people, and maybe so are most of their friends. And they'll post something along those lines, expressing their concern that they've just been lumped in with the "Enemy" just because -- for example -- they graduated from Princeton, and OSC will reply with something about how they're close-minded and incapable of listening to opposing opinions. Which has the effect of just reiterating, to their face, the broad generalization they were initially posting to refute in the first place. I can see how that'd be more than a little annoying.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
If I WERE smart enough, I'd form a secret cabal to manipulate the forum to my own nefarious ends.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ErezL:
One thing I had a hard time understanding is the date of story, is it happening right now and the president is Bush? is it next year? ten years

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwen:
I assumed it was one of those Faceless Presidents that authors use so often...

---

quote:

---

One thing I had a hard time understanding is the date of story, is it happening right now and the president is Bush? is it next year? ten years

---

Fiction...not real...as in, the timeline is not that important.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Ah. See, I disagree that "inflexible" necessarily means "close-minded."

I would suspect, in fact, that OSC would also refuse to accept that stubborn people are also close-minded people.

It's true that I've read five chapters, and am thus forced to work from an assumption of the text based on what OSC's said in the past, what he's written in the past, and what he's said in this thread. If the rest of the book throws a huge curve-ball and I wind up being completely off-base about it -- if, for example, every other "Close-Minded" antagonist we meet would vote Republican -- I'll gladly take it all back.

If it would make you feel any better, feel free to preface all my posts with "based on what we've seen so far...." I've kind of assumed that was implicit, but maybe not.

-------

quote:

---

Fiction...not real...as in, the timeline is not that important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
Tom,
Normally I enjoy reading your posts, but on occasion you diverge into your own little world where an argument only exists so that you can continue arguing.

You've read five chapters of an unpublished book, and you've shown the same sort of unflexible (close-minded) one-dimensional behaviour that you're railing against.

---

quote:

---

Unless you quote and explain why you think he's being close-minded, this post is nothing but a driveby snide remark that pointlessly inflames people. Don't be disrespectful.

---

Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Frivel and Scheck #9: Our Club

Slice your palm across and down,
Cruciform to prove your worth,
Place your faith in cardboard crown,
Swear to overrun the Earth.

We've got a club
Not the Boys' or Cubs'
It's our very own Club
Believe it, bub.

The first rule we make,
Our most sacred number one,
Higher than our own souls' sake...
No girls, 'cause they're not fun

We've got a club
Not the Boys' or Cubs'
It's our very own Club
Believe it, bub.

Our oaths are mighty, blood-sworn true;
Our sticks and stones make meat of you!
Pirate Brotherhood of Treehouse Hill,
There are lots...LOTS of idiots to kill.

We've got a club
Not the Boys' or Cubs'
It's our very own Club
Believe it, bub.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
It's true that I've read five chapters, and am thus forced to work from an assumption

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If I were writing a work of fiction and mentioned "the wrinkled, idiotic old prune who ran the White House a couple decades ago," it would not be unfair to assume that I meant Reagan.

---

quote:

---

At the same time, while "show-don't-tell" generally works, I think it might make the precieved problem even worse, because the people Reuben refers to see themselves as open-minded. Assuming such people exist, the reader thinks one of three things: (a) "That's close-minded," (b) "That's a poor representation of a liberal belief, why didn't the student argue X," or (c) "Why is that a close-minded point of view?" It's a lot more slippery than using show-don't-tell when trying to show that a character is intelligent, or funny, or inquisitive, or whatever because there are people who embrace these opnions and the point will be lost on anyone who reacts with (B) or (C). Then it sounds really preachy, because everybody needs to think (A).

More space would have to be devoted to illustration the close-mindedness of the students, but the result might be a book spends an undue amount of time at Princeton, while plot supposedly takes place in the outside world. I don't think there's an easy way to handle it.

---

quote:

---

If this is consciously reactionary, that's fine; the chapters work as slightly inflammatory fiction. If it's meant to reflect OSC's belief that the American left is more of a threat to Open-Minded People than the right, that's also fine -- but he should expect that to dismay those of his readers who disagree with him on that point but otherwise value his opinion.

If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Unless you quote and explain why you think he's being close-minded, this post is nothing but a driveby snide remark that pointlessly inflames people. Don't be disrespectful.

---

Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames.

---

Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames...and reiterate indefinitely.

We want a civil discussion, not a flame war, and Tom wasn't being close-minded, nor particularly inflexible (don't you have to be argued against in order to be able to refuse to acknowledge the argument?), and of course he's only read five chapters of this unpublished book. The same goes for everyone in this thread, except for Mr. Card. What are we supposed to be using as evidence for our discussion of these five chapters of this unpublished book?
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
OK, finished chapter five. Which leaves me with two thoughts.

First, I have to see where this goes. Soon.

Second, the description of the men's actions, reactions, and dialogue in chapter five didn't work for me. I understand that in that situation, with men trained for such events, that this may be exactly how they may act and speak. But because I am not similarly trained, it reads to me as unrealistic and that's not something I expect from an OSC book. I am also not a seven year old military genius, a Russian witch, or a Maker, but I have no problem empathizing with those characters at all. Not so, here.

I accept that they cannot afford to acknowledge the enormity, the wracking emotion behind the events they've just witnessed, not and still be effective. But there is also no mention of the effort that takes, or that it will ever affect them. There's nothing for me as the non-military reader to latch onto. They may as well be talking about the bombing of a Starbucks, aside from Malek's anger at being betrayed and used. And since the strength of OSC's work has always been, to me, his amazing ability to make me deeply care about a wide range of people and the choices they make, this seemed oddly flat.

Possibly because of that, I'm not really "in" the story at that point and so the conversation between the two men afterwards reads like two World Watch columns talking to each other. These men think alike, and would probably quickly realize they think alike. At this time, in this situation, I would expect terse comments made with the assumption that the other person would understand, even if the reader has to think about it. Didn't OSC once say in one of his Writer Lessons that you should try trimming out alternate lines of dialogue to make a conversation sound more realistic?

Instead Malek and Cole provide complete and thought-out statements that sound more like quotes than dialogue. It doesn't feel to me like they're talking to each other. It feels like the author is talking through both of them to me, and that pushes me farther out of the book.

Please note that this doesn't address the content of what they're saying. Doesn't matter. When a book starts preaching, regardless of the message, it loses me. I'm a huge Heinlein fan but his later books pushed me away too, for the same reason.

It may be that this is simply the style. I don't read many thrillers, and it does seem as if this has less description, less inner process than his previous works, but this was my first-read impression.

[ August 14, 2006, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
I'd be willing to bet that later in the book there is some equally scathing criticism of redneck America as well, offered by Malek.
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
Alright, I have NOT fully read through this thread yet, and will continue in a moment. However, I have a few comments I don't want to lose in the process, and need to voice them, before my ADD mind erases them.

1.) This book already has a place on my bookshelves, despite the fact that some of the overall feel of it disturbs me...more on that later.

2.) If you are going to read a book that is intended for entertainment purposes, you either need to turn off your sensitivity, political, religious, racial, societal,etc. tenderness, or, just not read the book. Personally, and please don't be offended, I think it ridiculous that so many people limit themselves by calling themselves Liberal, Conservative, Right-Wing, Left-wing, Democrat, Republican, etc. I refuse to let someone else's ideas and values define who I am. I can think for myself, and I prefer to build, demolish, and rebuild my own thoughts and opinions. I am not a member of any political party. I am not to be defined by any of my affiliations, except one. I am an American. And if you ask me, that is the way we ALL should be.

3.) To Mr. Card (whom, by the way, is one of my favorites), Please don't take this as anything other than a simple observation, but there has been a recurring theme in a lot of your works that speaks of how horrible America is. There has been a sense of hopelessness and fear that makes me uncomfortable. (That has NEVER stopped me from reading anything unless it rang through as truly offensive, which nothing of yours has) I guess this really has nothing to do with anything needing to be changed in your stories, it's more of a personal gripe. That sense of corruption and powerlessness that accompanies the themes of governmental corruption and plots within plots within plots, only feeds the paraniod views we have forced down our throats by politicans and the news and college professors on a daily basis. Don't be offended. I REALLY want to finish this book, ASAP. I am just tired of the constant reminder of how corrupt and blind the leaders of our country are. I have children, and it terrifies me needlessly. In the end, I think that all we can do boils down to whether or not we consider ourselves Americans, and what our definition of an American is. I believe in America the way our forefathers did. A land of freedom and opportunity; the one place on earth where we can tryly exercise our right to free agency.

I don't care what the press wants me to think, I don't care what popular sentiment is. I AM AN AMERICAN, and fighting for my country and my freedom is what I will do, if and when it becomes necessary.


ok...I'll quit griping and preaching. I really hope this didn't offend anyone, but I thought it needed to be said.
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
Hey Cecily aka Narnia -- I thought of you when I first read through the posted chapters, too . . . *grin*

Thanks, Mr. Card, for posting the work and welcoming comment!

I zipped through the five chapters a couple of days ago, and was both interested in the remaining story and puzzled/disturbed by some facet or t'other in the writing.

I just re-read chapters 1 and 2. Here are my reactions,as a reader, to the story as it is at this point. Beyond the reaction of wanting the rest of the story, of course, which in the long run is the telling point, no?

There's something about chapter 1 that just doesn't work for me -- perhaps it's merely the placement in the story. Perhaps it's the continual emphasis on "the Americans" . . . I dunno. I'll continue to ponder.

I think part of it does harken back to a sense of "flatness" in the first chapter. And a truly almost overwhelming sense of being preached at about "valiant soldiers, sacrifice, the great americans, etc."

I really think I'd prefer chapter 2 as the opening -- perhaps interspersed with one or two memory flshbacks.

I can see Malek being human enough to tune out during some professorial-student interchange and muse on how he wound up sitting in Princeton in the first place . . . and comparing the horrors of actual war to the horrors of seminars filled with yes-men . . .

And then, maybe I'm all washed up.

*grin*
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
ok, STILL not through with the thread (still need to read page three), but daguum, people, it's a work of FICTION, intended for ENTERTAINMENT. To quote Mystery Science Theater "Just repeat to yourself, "it's just a show. I should really just relax."

I can sort of see how someone that considers themselves liberal would have taken chapter two offensively, but once again, it's a story, and even though there ARE people that think like the main character, and there ARE people that are just as awful as HE sees them, it's just a story. Not everyone is like that, and OSC knows that. Perhaps none of you has intended to sound offended, but you are ACTING offended. I honestly felt the need to be defensive, even though the comments were not directed at me. And I am sure, my earlier comments will have offended someone, despite my intentions.

I'm just saying.

And let's not forget. OSC IS the author of this particular story. Anyone would respond to an attack on their work, whether or not an attack was intended. And let's not forget that he has a lot going on all at once, and probably doesn't have the time to sit back and deeply ponder the possible intentions of those that are posting on this forum. My first impression of most of the comments by ice, tom, and a couple of others, has been a somewhat negative one, and I have had the time to really try to read and understand. I've gone back a couple of times, and reread the thread (so far), and honestly, I think it's just because everyone, including OSC is speaking so...articulately? What I mean to say is that y'all is usin' such high falutin' words it's not too hord to feel like a bumpkin', and that just don't make ANYONE feel none too good.

(yeah, it was over the top, but I hope you get the idea.)

I understand that there is terminology that better expresses ideas, thoughts, and whatnot, but it DOES tend to put others on the defensive.

So THERE! =P
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
LAST COMMENT, I PROMISE! hehehehe

It seems like y'all are trying to make him change his story to something that YOU like and agree with. Now if he were to do that, it would cease to be HIS story. You can either read the book or not, it's up to you. However you would not change something YOU wrote or made to please someone else, so why should HE?

Perhaps I'm a bit biased as an aspiring author with a story that has been poked at and called "stereotypical." Perhaps it IS, but dagnabbit, it's MY story, and I'll tell it as I want to. Now if there are points that are not interpreted the way I intended them to be, then I will fix it, but I'm not about to change the story or the characters because someone reading it disagrees with what I choose to have MY charaters do.

And now I'll shut up! LOL
 

---

Posted by Feiwaltan (Member # 7912) on :
 
Icec0o1, I believe that you are misinterpeting the following quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icec0o1:
"... Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? That's what he kept asking himself. But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not.

Yep, it's definitive now. People who don't agree with him are determined to remain ignorant and he's completely right. What an open-minded person he is. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Some comments on the story -

(spoiler)Actually, a question first of all. I got confused somewhere in there about who actually pulled off the attack. It's supposed to be ACTUAL terrorists, who were fed information by a White House leak, who got the information from Malek when he created it, who then set up the attack, and it was supposed to look like the American army who did it?

---

quote:

---

I accept that they cannot afford to acknowledge the enormity, the wracking emotion behind the events they've just witnessed, not and still be effective.

---

quote:

---

It seems like y'all are trying to make him change his story to something that YOU like and agree with. Now if he were to do that, it would cease to be HIS story. You can either read the book or not, it's up to you. However you would not change something YOU wrote or made to please someone else, so why should HE?

---

quote:

---

If you are going to read a book that is intended for entertainment purposes, you either need to turn off your sensitivity, political, religious, racial, societal,etc. tenderness, or, just not read the book. Personally, and please don't be offended, I think it ridiculous that so many people limit themselves by calling themselves Liberal, Conservative, Right-Wing, Left-wing, Democrat, Republican, etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwen:
I wouldn't be able to "turn off" my religious/ethnic sensitivity reading a book with a gratuitous description of The Typical Money-grubbing, Cheating Jew.

---

quote:

---

I got the impression that the posting was something like when someone shows a draft of a story to their friends: What do you think? What should I change? What parts do you like? Do you think it's realistic or believable? Do you like the characters I want you to like? et cetera, not Here it is, tell me how much you like it and if you don't like parts shut up and go away. He's asking for advice, we're giving it, he chooses to change it or not, no hurt feelings--ideally.

---

quote:

---

-- With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them. As others have pointed out, this is a work of fiction, not a deliberate smear on anyone. Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment. Gross overreaction is the hallmark of the closed-minded.

---

quote:

---

I read OSC posts here and I understand that he doesn't try to make his own opinions come through in the story but even after reading those posts I still can't release myself from that impression, I feel as if I am being lectured to, instead of just observing the hero thoughts and feelings, and that's not a very nice feeling.

---

quote:

---

That’s what I thought; I didn’t believe Card purposefully wanted to be that strongly offensive. I was hoping that you could look at it from my point of view and see how the words and phrases used could be very insulting to a lot of people.

---

quote:

---

If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.

I think this is what causes the mental disconnect for a lot of liberal OSC fans. They read one of his criticisms of the Left and think, "Man, I'm not like that at all. I'm one of the Open-Minded People." And maybe they're correct; maybe they are one of the Open-Minded people, and maybe so are most of their friends. And they'll post something along those lines, expressing their concern that they've just been lumped in with the "Enemy" just because -- for example -- they graduated from Princeton, and OSC will reply with something about how they're close-minded and incapable of listening to opposing opinions. Which has the effect of just reiterating, to their face, the broad generalization they were initially posting to refute in the first place. I can see how that'd be more than a little annoying.

---

quote:

---

Please note that this doesn't address the content of what they're saying. Doesn't matter. When a book starts preaching, regardless of the message, it loses me. I'm a huge Heinlein fan but his later books pushed me away too, for the same reason.

---

quote:

---

With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them.

---

quote:

---

Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment.

---

quote:

---

I see no point in speculating or analyzing something where less than 5% of it has been presented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:
If it is demonstrable that certain colleges and universities have profoundly leftist faculties, then it is hardly an offense to utilize that truth in a work of fiction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
Cooky was the original spelling. I personally detest the movement toward taking the plural form and back-forming a new singular from it. Hence I'm campaigning for cooky instead of cookie. Though I confess to inconsistency, since flunky sounds like an adjective (he had a flunky semester) and flunkie appears to be the noun. Anyway, because you saw cooky in my manuscript, you are that much more aware of it as a possible spelling. And NOW you're aware of it as the older spelling.

---

quote:

---

c1730 BURT Lett. N. Scot. (1760) II. xxiv. 272 In the Low-Country the Cakes are called Cookies.
1808 W. IRVING Salmag. (1824) 368 Those notable cakes, hight new-year cookies.
1816 SCOTT Antiq. xv, Muckle obliged to ye for your cookies, Mrs. Shortcake.
1852 D. G. MITCHELL Dream Life 97 Very dry cookies, spiced with caraway seeds.
1852 BARTER Dorp & Veld 107 Cookies, or unleavened cakes of coarse meal, baked on the grid-iron.
1870 B. HARTE Luck Roar. Camp 227 (Farmer) He lost every hoof and hide, I'll bet a cookey!
1897 E. GLANVILLE Tales from Veld 51 Raking the ‘cookie’ from the fire-place, whence it came baking hot.
1935 M. DE LA ROCHE Young Renny xxiv. 214 Mary was arranging plates of bread and butter, thick ginger cookies,..and a bowl of halved peaches.
1968 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 17 Feb. 6/2 Children sneaking cookies from a cookie jar.

---

The OED grants that "cooky" and "cookey" are also found, but they're not the preferred spelling. ("Cooky" is, in fact, given its own entry; it's a name for a female cook.)

And NOW you're aware that the assumption that "cookie" must have been a back-formation from "cookies" is unfounded.

[Edited to note that, as TomDavidson points out below, these citations don't actually prove anything one way or the other. Oops.]

[Edited again to say I was wrong, wrong, wrong. See post even further below.]

[ August 15, 2006, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Shmuel ]
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 

quote:

---

It's a bit of a strawman to claim the supporters of Card's position are condemning the offended over mere disagreement, don't you think?

---

quote:

---

Your sentiment and Malek's are the same. Both are having a defensive revulsion against an opponent who disrespects what they hold sacred

---

quote:

---

Tom,
Normally I enjoy reading your posts, but on occasion you diverge into your own little world where an argument only exists so that you can continue arguing.

You've read five chapters of an unpublished book, and you've shown the same sort of unflexible (close-minded) one-dimensional behaviour that you're railing against.

---

quote:

---

With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them. As others have pointed out, this is a work of fiction, not a deliberate smear on anyone. Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment. Gross overreaction is the hallmark of the closed-minded.

---

quote:

---

Icec0o1 - I'm glad to see that unlike Reuben Malek, you are open-minded and nonjudgmental, and that you are able to accept the idea that other people might disagree with you and still be worth knowing. Oh, wait - it's Malek who gets to know people who disagree with him ...

---

quote:

---

You're offended by someone who has a negative view of people like you. Yet you claim you're open-minded, one of the most open-minded people out there. I'd say that if you really want to show your being open-minded just say you disagree, but can accept that characters point of view, even if it's narrow minded. After all, isn't being open-minded acknowledging views different from your own?

---

quote:

---

What I marvel at is the inability of "open-minded" people to conceive of opposing viewpoints as having validity. I am warned that having a major character feel disdain for the intellectual establishment will "alienate" readers; but I have received identical warnings over the years because I've had sympathetically portrayed gay characters (for instance) - warnings with just the same tone of patronizing "helpfulness" offered here. Who would have trouble recognizing that warning as thinly disguised bigotry, when it comes from the Right?

---

quote:

---

Your objections reveal Scott's point-- you hate the idea that someone disagrees with your political leanings so much you can't see your way to opening your mind that they might have a reason for disagreeing.

---

quote:

---

I find the debating going on here based on only 5 chapters of fiction to be silly. It's not even through the first act yet. Any debate at this time would be knee-jerk reaction. I see no point in speculating or analyzing something where less than 5% of it has been presented. And then there is this nitpicking about what the different characters are saying or how they are presented. Would it have made any difference to you if you had never known the political stance of the author? Would it change who, what or how you nitpick?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Your citations don't show "cookie" as a singular noun until 1897.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:
However, I think the validity of the offended's discomfiture does involve a question of degree. I could be wrong, though. How about this? Consider a Catholic taking offense at The DaVinci Code for its suggestion that Jesus may have fathered a child, versus a Jew taking offense at Passion Of The Christ for depicting Caiaphas, the high priest, as a murderer. One is offended over an author's conjecture, while one is offended over the surviving historical account of the event.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:
Calling TDVC anti-Catholic in that circumstance is really a matter of opinion. But calling POTC anti-Semitic based on its protrayal of Caiaphas is as absurd as calling it anti-Christian over its portrayal of Judas Iscariot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:
In that light, is calling Empire anti-liberal based on five chapters and the author's known political views factually valid, or merely subjective opinion?

---

quote:

---

I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.

Those liberals who have taken what he wrote as a personal attack are merely basically painting a sign on themselves that says: "I am that kind of liberal." That's nothing to be proud of.

---

quote:

---

I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.

Those liberals who have taken what he wrote as a personal attack are merely basically painting a sign on themselves that says: "I am that kind of liberal." That's nothing to be proud of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
In your opinion. To those of us who think that those stories were made up as they were in order to justify hatred against Jews, it's anything but a historical account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
Well... no. It simply means that many Christians have grown out of their literal reading of a text that is essentially anti-semitic in nature. While Mel Gibson is among those who embraces that original text and its message.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
In your opinion. To those of us who think that those stories were made up as they were in order to justify hatred against Jews, it's anything but a historical account.

---

With respect, if merely thinking a story was made up were a valid counter to its accuracy, all history books would be forced into the fiction section.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by starLisa:
Well... no. It simply means that many Christians have grown out of their literal reading of a text that is essentially anti-semitic in nature. While Mel Gibson is among those who embraces that original text and its message.

---

The gospel account itself is not anti-Semitic, even though the ignorant have tended to magnify Matthew 27:25 as a condemnation of all Jews. (the statement is not repeated in the other three gospels and is suspected as a later addition to Matthew, much like the trinity was added to Matthew 28:19 after it was made doctrine hundreds of years later.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sevenar:
But this is fairly far afield from the Empire discussion. Might be better suited to a different thread.

---

quote:

---

I was thinking more of the anti-semitic diatribe that occupies the entirety of Matthew 23.

---

starLisa, Matthew 23 is mostly diatribe against certain Jews-- specifically, the scribes and the Pharisees.

It's no more anti-semitic than God's pronouncements in Exodus 32, and every other time Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah chastised the Israelites for their wickedness.

But I believe we've had this discussion before.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

I was thinking more of the anti-semitic diatribe that occupies the entirety of Matthew 23.

---

starLisa, Matthew 23 is mostly diatribe against certain Jews-- specifically, the scribes and the Pharisees.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
It's no more anti-semitic than God's pronouncements in Exodus 32, and every other time Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah chastised the Israelites for their wickedness.

---

It really is.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Isn't.


 

---

Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
1. Thanks for catching the inconsistency about what Cole is wearing. It'll be fixed in the copy edit.

---

quote:

---

Ok, I know this is a deviation from the more heated areas of this discussion, but I was thrown of by this comment from OSC... Was I the only one that just assumed that Cole was joking when he said he'd be there with his class shirt on? I just figured he was making light of many places in DC being thronged by hundreds of school children in bright color-coded shirts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I am a Christian, and I take GREAT offense at being refered to as an anti-semite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I may not be perfect, but I am most definitely not a bigot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
When you refer to any part of the Bible as anti-semetic, you are calling a LOT of people bigots, and that is MOST uncalled for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
Perhaps you DO see some of it as anti-semetic, but I've never seen any of Christ's life as such. The condemnation never lay on the Jews of Christ's time, but upon the men in power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
Christ himself was a Jew, was he not?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
So doesn't that mean that many Christian beliefs are based on the beliefs of the Jews he descended from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I am trying to make is that more than anything else, we need to stop taking offense where none is intended, and we need to stop taking offense for other people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
If you choose to believe that I am an anti-semite because I am a Christian, then so be it. That is YOUR choice. However, you should know that that hurts my feelings, and that is all I have to say about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Synesthesia:
And I want an 1864 Webster. They have words like rantipole.

---

quote:

---

Both sides demonize each other. Both sides seem incapable of recognizing that MOST Americans are squarely in the middle, hating how common abortion is, detesting late-term abortions, but also unwilling to criminalize abortions or ban them in the early stages. The one side looks only at the polls that show that most people oppose "banning abortions," while the other side looks only at the polls that show that most people favor "eliminating late-term abortions." Thus they can look only at the polls that give them a majority - whereas NEITHER extreme actually has majority support.

---

Why can't you see this happening, and why can't you see YOURSELF doing this in this argument about the "cultural establishment." Who the heck is "they?" I've asked you this before.

You even said in this post that a person who believes that no intelligent person can disagree with him is uneducated, and NOT intelligent. Yet earlier in this thread you said that if one doesn't believe that universities are run as institutions of enforced ideology then its obviously because we have already been indoctrinated, or are too stupid to tell the difference.

Which is it? Obviously the only intelligent, insightful person here is YOU. You're certainly the only person whom you seem to give any credit in that department. Gah. I'm disgusted at you for not recognizing the difference between having a point, and being totally correct, or being willing to make the distinction. What should I care though? I guess I've been indoctrinated into my ideology of... oh wait, I feel exactly the same way about education should be as you do. Well this certainly doesn't add up
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Chirs Bridges wrote: "Real people don't talk that way..."

And I'd like to direct you all to the exceptionally long post by the lovely Gwen that quotes a lot of prior posts from this thread...now feel free to laugh as I just have! ROFL

Which just proves my point. People write in complete sentences. They don't often talk that way.

Here's two people talking about the movie "Snakes on a Plane."

Example 1:

"I can't wait to see 'Snakes on a Plane' tonight," Sam said.

Jim agreed. "Yes, the anticipation, driven by the viral marketing on the Internet, has worked me up into a frenzy, as it did many of my friends."

"But the snobbish movie critics will surely denigrate this film, not realizing that they are not its intended audience." Sam said, and we walked on.

Example 2:

"You ready for tonight?" Sam asked.

I grinned. "'I want these--" Sam joined in for the rest. "---(expletive) snakes off this (expletive) plane!" And we both broke up laughing.

I knew it would be a dumb movie. The critics would surely think so. But that was so not the point...


Doesn't matter what the opinions are, and you won't find me criticizing an author over the opinions of his or her characters. Not my call, not my book. But literary criticism is fair game, and if my characters' dialogue sounde unrealistic or stilted I would want to know about it.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

The problem is that the wording of the passage seems to equate liberalism with closemindedness and condemn liberals--not close-minded people--in pretty strong terms.

---

quote:

---

And I'd like to direct you all to the exceptionally long post by the lovely Gwen that quotes a lot of prior posts from this thread...now feel free to laugh as I just have! ROFL

---

quote:

---

Ok, I was bothered a bit by all of it, too, but not enough to get as worked up over it as it feels like most of us are doing. I came to discuss the chapters and my slight discomfort (which, by the way is entirely different from anyone else's that has been posted here.) with the fatalistic view of America's future. Now, this entire thread has dissolved into a pointless round of "You're a jerk! no, YOU're the jerk! no you are! no YOU are!" We have gone from simply trying to point out to the author our own reactions to the story, to name calling, propaganda paranoia, and now anti-semetism???

---

quote:

---

See, there is at least discussion of Neo-conservatives and an sense that they may be betraying true conservatism.

---

quote:

---

Example 1:

"I can't wait to see 'Snakes on a Plane' tonight," Sam said.

Jim agreed. "Yes, the anticipation, driven by the viral marketing on the Internet, has worked me up into a frenzy, as it did many of my friends."

"But the snobbish movie critics will surely denigrate this film, not realizing that they are not its intended audience." Sam said, and we walked on.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, he did it in a narrative tone ("Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? ... But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not.") This tone made it feel more like it was the author's opinion more so than the character's. (Notice the difference between the question “Am I like them” and the answer “No, he was not.” I would think ‘No, I’m not’ would serve the same purpose and be less offensive. The former implies outside absolute approval of his beliefs.)

---

This makes me think that a large portion of the problem is with people who don't fully appreciate how deeply OSC goes into POV. It was one of the things I had to learn very quickly when reading Speaker for the Dead (my first OSC book). Although, of course, I had read thousands of books narrated in third-person with each section having an identifiable POV, Speaker did this unrelentingly. (That's not a pejorative - basically, most of the books I've read do it in a lackadaisical manner.)

And the points of view were so strong, and EVERYTHING that happened depended on them. Novinha seen from outside is plain nuts, Novinha seen from her own POV is the most sympathetic person whose every action I think is wrong I've ever read. By far.

In this case, I can attest that Malek's opinion as expressed in the section you quoted is one shared by many military people in academia.

This is the reason I never for one second saw a difference between the quoted thoughts and the "No, he was not" outside of quotes. All of OSC's writing is like this, and it's one of the reasons I like it so much.

Putting something disagreeable in the mouth of a character one suspects the author to be sympathetic to shouldn't cause anyone problems.

It is a huge mistake to assume that the thoughts and POV of a sympathetic character are shared by the author.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I broke my comments on style out into a separate, hopefully nonpolitical thread.
 

---

Posted by Karmen (Member # 9666) on :
 
Wow, you guys don't go half way on anything do you? A mere five chappies and dear Mr. Card has been questioned concerning the deep psychological workings of the few fictional characters he has given us a glimpse of in a preview. Relax and wait until the entire book is at your disposal before jumping down each other's throats.

Those first two pages of the thread were really out for blood. I'm no lackwit, and I had to use google dictionary to decipher some of those insults.

As MommaMuse said, I've got a spot for Empire on my shelves and am anxiously awaiting it's release.

A blanket "HELLO!" to all of you, I'm looking forward to getting to know you all in the future.
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 

quote:

---

Wow, you guys don't go half way on anything do you? A mere five chappies and dear Mr. Card has been questioned concerning the deep psychological workings of the few fictional characters he has given us a glimpse of in a preview. Relax and wait until the entire book is at your disposal before jumping down each other's throats.

---

quote:

---

Those first two pages of the thread were really out for blood. I'm no lackwit, and I had to use google dictionary to decipher some of those insults.

---

Not out for blood, surely. Maybe a few bruises, a black eye or two, but no blood.

quote:

---

As MommaMuse said, I've got a spot for Empire on my shelves and am anxiously awaiting its release.

---

quote:

---

A blanket "HELLO!" to all of you, I'm looking forward to getting to know you all in the future.

---

quote:

---

Wow, you guys don't go half way on anything do you?

---

Nope. Where would the fun in that be?

quote:

---

A blanket "HELLO!" to all of you, I'm looking forward to getting to know you all in the future.

---

Welcome to Hatrack, Karmen!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I had to use google dictionary to decipher some of those insults.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
Star lisa, I NEVER called you a hypocryte OR a blind fool, and if you re-read my post, I think you'll see that.

---

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I am a Christian, and I take GREAT offense at being refered to as an anti-semite.
*************

I was calling you an anti-semite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

quote:

---

quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I am a Christian, and I take GREAT offense at being refered to as an anti-semite.
*************

I was calling you an anti-semite.

---

Typo?

---

quote:

---

I was calling you an anti-semite. Not unless you're calling me a hypocrite and a blind fool.

---

It's fairly obvious that I meant "wasn't". I've fixed it now.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 


Great.
 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
Wow…..
You all realize it’s just a story right?
OSC doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the characters or what they are doing. But is telling a story about them.
And by the way, a very exciting story so far too! If it continues like this we might be in for another Ender’s Game.
Great job Scott!
 

---

Posted by Gwen (Member # 9551) on :
 

quote:

---

Wow…..
You all realize it’s just a story right?
OSC doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the characters or what they are doing. But is telling a story about them.
And by the way, a very exciting story so far too! If it continues like this we might be in for another Ender’s Game.
Great job Scott!

---

quote:

---

It's that we've already had the experience you seem to be having here

---

quote:

---

Is it your contention that most conservatives suffer with dignity and good grace through popular entertainments that contain unnecessary quantities of liberal propaganda?

---

quote:

---

When writing about Cavil Planter, were Card's only two choices to make slavery look noble and attractive or to make Planter a ravening monster with unknown and inexplicable motives?

---

I almost brought up Cavil way back at the start of this thread, but I didn't want to get into it. I still don't, but I guess I'm masochistic.

I think the reason nobody was offended by Cavil was because nobody, not for one minute, believed that OSC thought the same thoughts he did. Card created a realistic character who offered insight into a person who thought the way Cavil did. Nobody got upset, because they were seeing it as fiction.

Here, because they believe Card might just be preaching his thoughts, they're getting worked up and feeling defensive, because they're not feeling as "safe" by being wrapped up in a fictional character. Instead, they're feeling genuinely attacted, like it was coming from Card.

If the passage had been written by, say, Vonnegut, people would probably have one of two reactions.

First, they might say Wow, look, Vonnegut can get inside the mind of a conservative. But they wouldn't get upset about what he was saying about liberals because they'd feel protected and safe that it was just a fictional character, separate from the author, in exactly the same way Cavil is separate from Card.

In fact, the exact same passage might then elicit response from the right wingers that it as being overly critical and satirical towards conservatives, showing them as people who think they're open-minded while shunning the ideas of others.

In other words, they'd project the meaning into the book from what they were expecting.

Really, that's what it feels like is happening here. Card's written a character. This one has feelings similar to Card's. But where people were willing to be patient and understand a man like Cavil Planter, in this case they're not willing to understand an inherently good man like Malek.
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
StarLisa, I don't know if there is any way to "private message" anyone on here, but there is a question I'd like to ask. It's more of a question of ettiquette than anything else. Since you're Jewish, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you! =) If there is a way to PM that I don't know about, would you mind dropping me a line, please?

Ever notice how easy it is to misconstrue something written on a forum? LOL
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
I know I'm late and I haven't really read this thread but I just want to put in my 2 cents about the book.

Man that's good stuff! I just think OSC has the most fascinating viewpoints ever. He introduces me to so many new ways of looking at things. I am definitely going to buy this book as soon as it comes out and it's jumping right to the top of my reading list.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

That's open mindedness. It's what we do...

---

I'm perfectly willing to accept this. But I would also appreciate some recognition that the "we" in that sentence applies as neatly to people on the other "side" of the metaphorical aisle.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
MommaMuse, Lisa's email address is visible in her profile. And if you were simply looking for a Jewish person to ask a question, she's far from the only one around here.
 

---

Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
 
Yeah, I think maybe rivka's Jewish.
 

---

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
 
MommaMuse, if your question is about Judaism, you may want to ask the rebbetzin.
 

---

Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
StarLisa, I don't know if there is any way to "private message" anyone on here, but there is a question I'd like to ask. It's more of a question of ettiquette than anything else. Since you're Jewish, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you! =) If there is a way to PM that I don't know about, would you mind dropping me a line, please?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
Ever notice how easy it is to misconstrue something written on a forum? LOL

---

quote:

---

But I would also appreciate some recognition that the "we" in that sentence applies as neatly to people on the other "side" of the metaphorical aisle.

---

Seriously? Okay. There are people on the other side of the metaphorical aisle to whom this applies just as neatly.

I just don't think the popular culture gives them nearly as many chances to practice it. I'm glad this book gave them one.

I'm also confident that by the time the book is done, I'll have a few more chances to practice it again myself. A book that is, on at least some level, about the bitter divide in American politics, written by a guy who I think does a pretty good job of sitting in the middle--I'll bet I get a few things to think about myself before it's all said and done.

Of course, it could just be I'm projecting . . . it has been known to happen.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
I'm almost positive that a man who believes that George W. Bush is the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill can't really be considered as sitting in the middle of the American political landscape.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GaalDornick:
Yeah, I think maybe rivka's Jewish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by docmagik:
[QUOTE]
But the fact is, the vast majority of us do endure a lot of it quietly. Sure, there are the nuts who gripe about everything, but they're the same people who have offensive bumperstickers on their cars and don't just listen to talk radio shows, but actually call them.

---

quote:

---

But for most of us, we aren't just "sucking it up." We're actually reading it, processing it, even enjoying it--I am a HUGE Michael Moore fan, even though politcally, he and I agree on nothing--and letting it become a part of us. Maybe we agree, maybe we don't, maybe we're changed by it, maybe we aren't, but we've long since passed the phase where it was worth being offended and taking it personally that a fictional character--or even the author who created him--might disagree with us.

That's open mindedness.

---

quote:

---

I'm almost positive that a man who believes that George W. Bush is the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill can't really be considered as sitting in the middle of the American political landscape.

---

quote:

---

But where people were willing to be patient and understand a man like Cavil Planter, in this case they're not willing to understand an inherently good man like Malek.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Bridges:

But if OSC's name wasn't on it and I skimmed through the first five chapters in the bookstore I doubt I would buy it, and not because of the politics. What I'm hoping is to get feedback on that without having to defend my openmindedness every time, which is why I started a new thread.

---

Its ironic Chris, that you of all people should be called closed minded for going to such lengths to be constructively critical of any book. That is just nonsense! People should know the difference between criticism and attack for one, and the difference between open-mindedness and blind acceptance for another. I think you're right on, for what that counts, (admittedly not much).

I had a literary criticism teacher recently mention to me that he had seen a comment written by me in an art criticism/comments folder at the local cafe. It was about the featured art in the cafe, and I had written that I liked the colors but not the subject matter (a bunch of skeletons and creepy stuff). Testing me, he suggested that I should perhaps use a psuedonym when being critical, and I said that I though my first name was sufficiently enigmatic. He said yes it might be, but he had recognized the hand writing, and what was more, the artist was his girlfriend. I stiffened, and he immediately laughed and said he was joking. Then he commented on his point, which was that I shouldn't be apologetic for a serious criticism, and that I had obviously cared enough to share my view with the artist. To attack me for that would have been stupid, because all I had proffered was an opinion based on solid observations: the colors WERE very rich, but the subject matter WAS uninspiring, at least to me.

For OSC to come here and argue with people about what his book means or represents or does seems silly to me. If it feels that he has put himself too much into it, then he has at least made it appear so, and he has effectively done that regardless of intent. A criticism which includes that observation, as a possibility, is ocmpletely valid; as are CB's other criticisms.
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
No hostility in here. No sir. Nope.

And StarLisa, I emailed you, let's hope I got the email address right. It's easy enough, but this is ME we're talking about! LOL
 

---

Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
 
"What I'm hoping is to get feedback on that without having to defend my openmindedness every time, which is why I started a new thread."

Some of us are trying to join you there . . . *smile*

Admittedly, I am not much of a "critic" but I am looking at it through the eyes of just the "reader".
 

---

Posted by MommaMuse (Member # 9659) on :
 
Rivka, Noemon, thanks for the outreach and encouragement! I appreciate it, even if I haven't mentioned it yet.

I don't know how to access other folks' profiles yet, since I haven't been able to spend much time fiddling around with the site this last week or so, but eventually, I'll get there! LOL

Again, dank you so beddy mush!
 

---

Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
 
Much earlier own, it was mentioned how OSCs style seems to be morphing, I would agree. This piece is worlds away from Speaker for the Dead. I, for one, prefer the older style which seems more polished, but I realize that OSC can write however he wants.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommaMuse:
I don't know how to access other folks' profiles yet, since I haven't been able to spend much time fiddling around with the site this last week or so, but eventually, I'll get there!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orson Scott Card:
But let me have a character who not only has a moral code that closely resembles that of the 50% of America that voted for Bush

---

quote:

---

I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to say "the 50% of Americans that voted for president who voted for Bush".

---