posted
Possible spoilers... but mostly you won't know what I'm talking about if you haven't read Shadow of the Giant yet.
/disclaimer
Of all the characters in all of Card's books that I've read, I never would think that it would be Virlomi in whom I identify most. Anssett was my favorite... but it came as quite a suprise when I was pondering Virlomi's final defeat and I suddenly realized how Virlomi's mistake was nearly exactly the same as some stuff going on in my life these days. Virlomi's mistake being her confusing her own hard work and talent for divinity then relying on that divinity to give her victory.
Not that I imagine myself to be a god. But in my life, I have been VERY blessed in almost every aspect of the word - and I give God full credit for that. Also, I'm one of those people who everyone likes and whatever I put my hand to succeeds -- magnificently. So there's been some confusion in my mind as to how much of my success is divine Providence and how much of it is just hard work. So in recent days/months/etc I've almost grown complacent that all the wonderful things in my life are solely due to God's Providence and had nothing to do with my hard work. AND that if I stopped working hard and I sat back on my lazy smugness, everything would still work out the same because "God's blessing is upon me and I can't fail".
Virlomi's defeat was like a wakeup call for me to examine in my own life what is God's blessing and what is the result of hard work... and that I shouldn't cease from hard work and endless fight just because I have been so blessed.
And I do hereby give God full credit for everything He has done in my life.
Does any of this make sense?
Thank you, Scott Card, for the lesson learned through Virlomi.
posted
When reading SOTG I started to get very angry at Virlomi, the way that she was drunk on power and thought she was a god. But then I realize, Virlomi may be a battle school graduate, but she's still human and will make mistakes that humans make. There's a little bit of Virlomi in all of us, give us to much power and watch us become drunk in our own ideas about ourself. There's definitley some leasons to be learned from Virlomi.
posted
Mainly I just got frustrated with Virlomi because I couldn't think of any more clever things for her to do. That's when I realized *I* was the "god" who suddenly let her down and didn't give her the victory. Nobody ever thinks, Hey, sometimes maybe God just runs out of ideas about how to bless you beyond your wildest imagination.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I don't think there will be more stories that include Virlomi. Unless there are. I mean, I didn't think there were going to be any more books about Ender as Ender. So you just never know about these things.
I think OSC did an excellent job of leaving judgement over Virlomi to the reader.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was reading the later passages about Virlomi, I was surprised at how much the way her thought process lined up with Achilles's. It was the whole, "the world bends to my desires" thing. Creeped me out a little. Just how many Achilles's are there in the world?
Posts: 1547 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every war, every plague, every famine kills lots of people; their lives have as much meaning as they put into them, and their deaths have as much meaning as other people put into them.
That does not change the fact that Virlomi had a learning curve.
It's also worth remembering that Virlomi's followers, at first at least, were absolute volunteers. The stories she told gave meaning and guidance to their yearning for freedom from oppressors and conquerors. They responded because they wanted to. Virlomi is not responsible for their deaths ... not until her hubris took her beyond rational expectation, and even then, those who followed her were uncompelled.
To be a leader in time of war is a terrible responsibility. It does not change the fact that the leader can only act and change and learn and grow within the limits of a human being.
Think how long it took at the beginning of WWII for the inexperienced Americans to sort out which commanders were worth a damn. If not for the "useless" North African campaign, some of the boneheads would have been in charge at D-Day ...
So the learning curve in war is always steep, and soldiers always die, not to overcome the enemy, but to expose the incompetence of their own commanders so they can be replaced. do those soldiers' deaths not also contribute to the cause?
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"do those soldiers' deaths not also contribute to the cause?"
Not to be excessively sardonic, here, but it's a shame they aren't around for us to ask them how they feel about it.
I mean, if you drag somebody off the street and ask him, "Hey, do you mind if we kill you so this really pretty Indian military commander can learn a lesson about her own limits," I suppose there's a chance he'll say yes. But we don't usually pitch military service that way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We also don't ask "How would you like to die being cannon fodder during a diversionary tactic?", but maneuvers like that are often required to win wars.
Is it worth it? I guess it mostly depends if the war is worth fighting and winning.
Posts: 1002 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless you've served in the military, or spent a good portion of your life in a military community, it's difficult to grasp the mindset it takes to follow orders. Even if the orders seem dumb, it's your duty to take those dumb orders and execute them as competently as you can. Nobody gets to vote on the soundness of tactics, or whether they're a diversionary force.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The human race is prone to sacrificing young males in warfare. But it's also worth remembering that young males who are not in the military are also highly likely to engage in life-sacrificing behavior. It's far more certainly in the genes than a lot of other traits that are supposed to be genetic. The young men who slaughter each other in gang warfare are acting out the war gene and yet cutting themselves off from future reproduction. And yet the gene lives on. Hmmmmm.
Nobody wants to be the one to die in war. But young men are made congenitally dumb enough to let their desire to compete, to conquer, overwhelm their desire not to die (speaking in general; there is no shortage, of course, of young men who have no such willingness). They expose themselves to risk. They drive fast. They take dangerous drugs. They get in fights. And they die in disproportionate numbers. War is just ONE of the ways that we make sure women outnumber men throughout human history.
Except, of course, me. I never had any of those impulses. No gang-joining. No fighting. No risky macho behavior. What a wimp. I don't even ski.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a bit ingenious to compare gang fights to professional soldiers fighting a war. Most soldiers, while trained for war, have no desire to fight. I think it would be more fair to apply the "congenital dumbness" you describe to the leaders who send our young men to war, rather than ascribe it to those who are sent to fight it.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
