for me its elemak, i cant stand him. he makes me want to scream at the book
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It's definitly Mamie from Lovelock. I think I have screamed at the book for her.
Of course one could argue that she doesn't count since Lovelock was a joint project (in which case I would argue that this so called "one" didn't exist ) in that case I don't really know. I'll have to think about it.
Hobbes Posted by invisible robot fish (Member # 5122) on :
mamie counts, since osc still helped to write it
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Novinha. She ruined the last books in the Ender Series for me. I wanted her to die slowly and painfully, and then be resurrected so that she could die that way again.
I often wonder - was Novinha suppose to be that obnoxious? Did OSC write her so that you could see into the depths of Ender's patience? Or, am I not suppose to find her as pathetic and weak and whiney as I do?
Posted by Moozh (Member # 4549) on :
By far Alvin, people disagree with me, but I find him far too well rounded to be realalistic, i thoiuhgt he ruined the potential for a great series. But o well, a lot of others liked him, so I must of missed something.
Posted by Gottmorder (Member # 5039) on :
I'd have to say Elemak. The guy was so greedy and had such a lust for power that he divided the human colonists and almost completely screwed up the Oversoul's plan simply because of his jealousy.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
Toni, I agree with you about Novhinia. Couldn't stand her. I groaned everytime she was in a scene.
Ni!
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Novinha represents the sinful, hateful, horrid masses of people.
Ender represents God's love and patience with the above.
Hmmmm . . . .
I didn't like Novinha, much, either. However, she is a classic example of where fear not dealt with can take one - how it can warp a person -
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Novinha. She ruined the last books in the Ender Series for me. I wanted her to die slowly and painfully, and then be resurrected so that she could die that way again.
While I don't agree with that statment--even thought it's very funny--I agree with the sentiment behind it. I dislike Novinha a lot also.
But, I think Elemak also ties Novinha for my most disliked character.
I have two more in the Homecoming series I dislike. Kokor and Sevet disgust me as well. I guess they were supposed to right? Posted by invisible robot fish (Member # 5122) on :
kokor and sevet have to be the most annoying, arrogant, and conceded characters of all time. but elemak is worse
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
What exactly did they concede?
Ohhhh! You meant conceited!
Silly me . . .
Posted by Goeke (Member # 5061) on :
Did anyone else find Quara very annoying in Children of the Mind?
I just reread it, and the passage where Jane-Valentine is trying to be nice to her, and asks what built up so much resentment. Quara replies with a made-up story about how Quim molested her as a child.
Maybe it's just that that bothers me, but it showed me how little she cared about anyone, even the memory of her dead brother.
I always liked how Orson Scott Card can make a death seem horrible in one book (Pipo and Libo's) and then mild in the next. What happened to Quim was not nearly so graphic or nasty as being flayed, but it was somehow much worse.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I interpreted that passage as a jab at the on-going psychobabble that excuses all personal failings on the grounds of some traumatic happening or the other, usuallu occurring in childhood - as I recall, Quara made some sort of pointed comment about that as well -
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
bean.
Posted by Diosmel Duda (Member # 2180) on :
That's funny that so many of you reacted so negatively to Novinha. I thought she was a beautiful character, and I came to love her by the end of the book, despite her flaws.
Actually, that was one of the most powerful things I got from Speaker for the Dead and is one of the things that make it one of my favorite books of all time: that I found myself able to love Novinha. I realized that if I could love her, I could (and should) find it in myself to forgive, respect, and even love everyone.
My least favorite character would have to be Mamie. She drove me nuts and will prevent me from reading the sequels to Lovelock.
[ May 01, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Diosmel Duda ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
She drove me nuts, but it was like playing a video game for me, a really good way to express my anger. I can't believe how long I've been waiting for the sequals to come!
<--*Is dying over here*
Hobbes Posted by Tacitus (Member # 5025) on :
I've got to stump for Quara also, by far the most enfuriating personality in any of Cards books. Novinha didn't particularly bother me at all, OSC provided such an intimate understanding of her it was easy to relate to where she was coming from. Elemak didn't bother me terribly either, sure he was a bad guy and all but again I can relate better to him than to Quaras character.
Posted by Goeke (Member # 5061) on :
quote:I interpreted that passage as a jab at the on-going psychobabble that excuses all personal failings on the grounds of some traumatic happening or the other, usuallu occurring in childhood - as I recall, Quara made some sort of pointed comment about that as well -
Maybe it was, but she insulted a brother that was not only practically a saint, but also sacrificed himself for the whole colony. Even if it is as you say, she has no respect for anyone.
Posted by Cassandra (Member # 4566) on :
I also thought Novinha was a beautifully sculpted character . . .
I think I can't stand mmm . . . probably Qing Jao. I really can't stand her.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Ok, I'm not saying Sevet, Kokor, Elemak, and Novinha are badly written by any means. OSC really knows how to write a detestable charater. He knows how to write a likeable one too. I'm just saying I can't stand the personalities of the characters. I'm not saying OSC wrote them poorly.
Posted by The Wiggin (Member # 5020) on :
I have to agree with Goeke and go with Quara but as an adult, she was funny as a child. And Goeke it was Wung-Mu not Jane-Val. that she told that story to.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I hate to point out that there couldn't have been a Quara without Grego. Quara never actually got people murdered, though she believed she was conspiring with the descolada. Sure Grego helped develop the outside inside travel. But didn't Quara have data on the descolada that was critical to recoding it so that inside outside travel didn't constitute another xenocide?
I have to say that I'm most repulsed by Cavil Planter and Reverend Thrower. They are really pretty much varelse in my estimation. (that's a dangerous, incomprehensible alien, right?)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yes, that's varelse. I have to disagree with about these particular characters being varelse though. Cavil Planter was not a good man, but I don’t think he was incomprehensible, just weak. He was tempted by his slave women (not because they tried to, but because of his lust) and being weak, succumbed to it. I think that all this says about him is what’ve I’ve already said, not a good man, a weak man.
Thrower I actually thought was not that bad a guy until he started the Property Right Crusade. I’m not sure what that makes him, so maybe that’s why you think he’s varelse, but it seems that before that he was a decent man.
This is something that’s always bugged me, because Thrower’s first experience with the Unmaker is when he realizes that almost all of America is going to be heathen if no one does anything about it. Apparently this thought opens up his mind to the Unmaker, but I never got that. It seems like while I wouldn’t have done the same thing, he really wanted to save the people of America. He gave up his future and moved to America to start a Church in the middle of the wilderness educating the local people. Doesn’t seem that evil to me.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
SPOILERS re: Alvin Maker series. I think one of the most important moral dilemnas of the Maker series is what to make of the otherworldly visitations that turn Thrower and Planter on to their diabolical paths. I used to worry about this more.
When the visitor first appears to Thrower, he quotes something about good men losing hope and that is all. That was the state Thrower had been in, dispairing over the godlessness of the new world (Pride). Thrower fails to apply the quote to his own situation, but is just bowled over by the mysterious visit. The Visitor tells Thrower very few lies, he just elicits Thrower's own prejudices and shapes them into the most destructive conclusions possible.
Cavil's overseer is the same deal. He just tells him to follow his heart (like a Disney movie) and it just happens that his heart is very bad. I believe Cavil's actions reveal that he is not just a lustful man, but actually evil. I mean, how bad do you have to be to get shunned out of the community of other slaveholders?
Posted by Dragon (Member # 3670) on :
quote: Novinha. She ruined the last books in the Ender Series for me. I wanted her to die slowly and painfully, and then be resurrected so that she could die that way again.
Ralphie, you said it perfectly! Except for maybe the resurrection part; once she's dead let her stay that way!
quote: OSC really knows how to write a detestable charater.
Too true!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Qing Jao, definately, she kept me from rereading the last two books for a couple of years, cause I couldn't stand reading about her again.
Posted by Mialith2713 (Member # 5246) on :
i dunno, achilles gets to a point where he is sickenly arrogant.
but then again, nuns kinda scare me, even though carlotta was hilariously cynical.
but ill have to say either achilles, novinha, or peter. not the EG peter, or New Peter. Its gotta be the Shadow of the Hegemon/Puppets Peter. such an arrogant little so and so...
or Mick... gotta hate Mick. Mick, Bonzo, and Bernard.
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Ender.
--Locke
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
Ender? why? He's too patient? He's too famous? I'd like to hear your reasons. Not that i like him more than any one other char, peter's my hero.
I'd say i hated Quara and Quin-jao the most because they knew better than to feal the way they did. Particularly Quara who was so obviously wrong and who obviously knew it she was just being a pain to be contrary and to get attention, That drives me up the wall. Novinha didn't bother me after SFTD, i think i just got used to her or because i met someone IRL who is exactly like her.
I dislike Bean too, for many reasons, he whines a LOT and he's sort of a coward, not entirely but enough to bug me.
~Brock ~Around the survivors, a perimeter create.
Posted by RushFan (Member # 5245) on :
Linkeree's mother in the tales of Capitol-Worthing Saga- truelly selfish, evil and abusive.
Posted by Jaxonn (Member # 5163) on :
Seriously disliked Cavil Planter, for the obvious reasons. Also , Kokor and Sevet. But the one I hated the Most Was Mebbekew, Elemak's puppet without a will of his own.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
I have to agree with Sevet and Kokor being reprehensible. It completely pissed me off when they got to leave with all of the "righteous" people. Give me a break! They showed absolutely no true change of heart, and should have stayed with Elemak and his evil cadre. (IMHO)
Okay, after thinking about this, my response was not logical. As the only adult women with the Elemak group, their lives would have been an abusive hell had they stayed. Their brother had to take them with him to protect them, whether they had had a change of heart or not
Surprisingly, I don't hate Elemak. He never pretended to be anything other than what he was.
[ June 11, 2003, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posted by matt (Member # 236) on :
In response to Hobbes' post about Mamie:
I disliked many aspects of Mamie, but she reminded me too much of some other ladies I've known growing up. Most of the time, I felt sad for her more than anything else. (But, and my whole post is leading up to this point...I might agree with Hobbes here, I just need more material to base my opinion on. And, to get this material, I'd need a second book in the series to more fully discuss Mamie's character...you know, maybe wrapped in with a story about a psychotic cat trying to kill a capuchin... )
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Brock-
Ender is a failure and evil.
He could not successfully wipe out the Buggers (Formics). In not killing them perfectly, their lives were lost in vain, therefore, making him evil. He became no more than a common murderer. Had he killed them perfectly (not one Bugger left) he would have made something beautiful. Something eternal (a very difficult feat). Instead, he brought a queen to life and began the rebuilding of the Buggers. Though such an action could be wonderful in the case of human civilization, the Buggers had reached their evolutionary peak and could go no further. For that reason, killing them only retarded their progress. At best. If you want a hero, look to Abner Doon/Jason Worthing (each represents 1/2 of the perfect hero). This brings up a very important fact that I tried to discuss in my thread "What is a Locke" (not to "toot my own horn"). A hero is naught without a monster. Both are, in the big picture, one and the same. Every saving act is a manifestation of this duality. On a philosophical side note, dualities spring up like weeds everywhere (taoism, the nature of light, matter/anti-matter).
--Locke
[ June 10, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: JLcke ]
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
That's a pretty foolish way to define evil because he failed annihilating an opponent, i hardly think that makes him evil. It sounds like your're making the same argument that the student in the beginning of speaker says that the act itself is evil regardless of intent?
Then i guess we're all evil and failures because i've come up against many opponents in one pursuit or another but since my body count is 0, I guess i failed totally and crossed from the ways of good to the ways of evil....
It's a sad state of affairs when any type of total devastation can be classified as beautiful, just because a creation is extinct.
I'm not taoist. the man who pushes a child out of the way of a building knocked over in an accident, I'm guessing his Yang was the earthquake right? no i can do better it was the people inside the building cuz if they hadn't made the building it wouldn't have fallen. In my opinion that man is a hero for saving someone else and dying in the process, but his family wasn't totally obliterated so i spose the earthquake was an evil failure right?
[ June 11, 2003, 03:33 AM: Message edited by: Brock ]
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Brock-
Re-read the post. He's a failure because he didnt wipe out the Formics. He's evil because he made their lives be lost in vain.
--Locke
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
I read it right the first time, i think you misunderstood me, i was being very fecetious.
If he saved the human race killing the majority of the buggers wasn't in vain, he incapacitated his opponent, that's winning in war, and as i see it, if the war's over it wasn't in vain because now i can go back to my sheep-herding. somehow i dont think that i've really stated anything different from my last post so i'll ask a different way:
So if hitler had killed all the jews he wouldn't have been evil? I'm not seeing how your judgement works.
~Brock ~By the Matrix!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:A hero is naught without a monster. Both are, in the big picture, one and the same. Every saving act is a manifestation of this duality. On a philosophical side note, dualities spring up like weeds everywhere (taoism, the nature of light, matter/anti-matter).
I get the impression that your saying that for every good or positive thing done, there is an evil, negative thing done. There are a few problems with this, number one is that this certainly isn't universal. Entropy, for example always increases. So it isn't perfectly balanced. Also, if we see a perfect duality between good and evil that would mean two things. The first is that there is an absolute moral code (otherwise good and evil would be meaningless terms). The second is an offshoot of the first: humans are unique to normal physical matter. If we are only atoms that react exactly as the laws of physics make them then there is no actuall action taken be humans. In fact there is no reaction to our enviroment either. We would become identical to our enviroment, there would be no meaningful difference bettween say the stone to our left and us.
If this is true and what you say is true that would mean that the laws of physics and the initial state of matter in the universe would be so perfectly set up that each atom's (or even string's) interaction would cause perfect balance on a moral level that would be approximitly 10^40 times their scale. That seems pretty far fetched to me.
I kind of went off on a tangent but the point is that we A) must have souls/spirits/whatever and B)must be able to react at least semi-independent of the enviroment around us. This does not dis-prove your theory, but think, if that were true then whoever created the universe (souls don't necesitate a God but I find it most unlikely that if there are souls there is no God) created it in such a way that their is absolute morals and also so that it's impossible for the human race to progress in following them. Not an impossible scenario but one I think is rather...impractical.
Hobbes Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Hobbes-
The first problem is that I wasn't suggesting that for every good act there is an evil to balance it. I was writing of leaders. For every savior there must be a monster, not merely to keep order, but more to make the savior and monster seem more so in relative terms. It becomes very difficult for people to agknowledge great leaders when not at war with something or someone. It takes conflict for people to recognize greatness. It is also for this reason that a meritocracy is so strong (I'd mention fascism but I'm sure I would get swiftly rebuked). On the point of the Phenomena of Man, what separtes you or I from the particle world is consciousness (synonymous with soul/mind). As thinking humans, we have great power of the universe through thought, without being aware of it. It is well known that the "observer" can change the results of an experiment entirely. On your point of entropy, I'd argue that the universe moves in a continuity towards a more ordered state (you're thinking thermodynamics). We have to forget our highschool chemistry class and realize the truth in quantum mechanics and other frontier physics. On both the sub-sub-atomic (quarks) and the sub-atomic level, we (science) finds that the univers does indeed more towards a more ordered state. We now know this (but we're still not sure why it doesn't translate that in the macroscopic). On a personal note, I like the way you think.
--Locke
p.s. Brock-
Would Hitler have been evil had he killed the jews and won the war?
(sorry about answering a question with another. I can't help it, I'm Irish)
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Let's start off with this:
quote:On a personal note, I like the way you think.
<grin> Don't feed this ego. *blushes*
quote:On both the sub-sub-atomic (quarks) and the sub-atomic level, we (science) finds that the univers does indeed more towards a more ordered state
I've never seen anything that supports. All that I've heard (from very reliable sources and plenty of them) is that the one way to tell wich direction the universe is going (in time) is by increase in entropy. Every reaction yeilds a increase in entropy. True this is only thermodynamics, but basically what it means is that the end result of on an infinite number of reactions is that all matter will become energy, which is fundemently unorganizied. Though I want to hear more about what your talking about here...
quote:For every savior there must be a monster, not merely to keep order, but more to make the savior and monster seem more so in relative terms. It becomes very difficult for people to agknowledge great leaders when not at war with something or someone. It takes conflict for people to recognize greatness.
quote:Would Hitler have been evil had he killed the jews and won the war?
I think these both adress the same point, is their absolute morals? I agree fully with you that people tend not to recognize greatness when it isn't surronded by something lesser. We always look to quantify differences, not absolutes. However, that doesn't mean that these absolutes don't exist, just that we have trouble seing them. For instance, if Hitler won the war and ended up writting the history books most people (at least under this hypothetical German control) would probably think he was something akin to The Savoir. However, if there are absolute morals, Hitler would be evil (not completlly, I don't think we've ever had a perfectly evil person born here) despite what he says about himself.
Well I think that if there is no spirirt/soul than we aren't seperated from the particle world. We are simply self-propegating physical phenomenon. Our conciousness is really just an effect of very carefully set up atoms that are a result of normal physical phenomenan. Conciousness losses meaning because the fact that we can percieve the world is no longer true. There is simply a system of atoms that make up our brain in a specific pattern.
Hobbes Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
re Novinha and Qing-Jao: These were two of the most resonant characters in the Ender books for me. I knew they were wrong, but I understood why they acted as they did, and their lives were so sad - so pointlessly sad, could they only see it - I couldn't possibly hate them. Deep, abiding compassion doesn't allow that. More so Qing-Jao, I think, than Novinha - I did see the annoying/abrasive side of Novinha, but Qing-Jao was joy and pain at once to read. An unshakable, pure, mistaken faith is one of the saddest things in the world, to me.
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
lissande what bout Quara what did you think of her?
Hitler would still be evil if he had killed the jews and won the war. What i was trying to figure out is how you judge good and evil, I dont understand how total destruction would make life lost not vain and not evil, ender killed an alien race he believed was trying to kill him, how can any action in self-defence be evil?
I can agree that it often takes a monster to bring a hero, but you dont hafto praise the monster, he's not the hero, the hero is worthy of praise independant of the monster, because he would've acted the same way regardless of what monster he was fighting, that's what makes him a hero.
Why because Ender's opponenets survived is he evil?
You still havn't answere this question.
~Brock ~He who lives by the Sword gets shot by us Archers
Posted by Josh W (Member # 5253) on :
Brock... One important point, Ender did not know that he was killing the Formics. For all he knew he was playing a video game. Would he have done it if he knew? My guess is not, after all that's one of the underlining plots of the series.
Hitler had a set plan to destroy anyone who was not Arian. Most likely Hitler did not have a problem with most races, he just new who he could rile to be on his side.
The character I find most vile is Abraham. Even thou he was a huge influence on todays religions he was one of the most short sighted people of the time. After reading OSC's depictions of the stories of Genesis and the Bible I'm convinced that Abraham is a major player in the reason that many great religions are split.
Look back at any Jewish, Islamic, and Christian religion and you will find that the roots are the same. How many Christians out there are aware that Islam recognizes Jesus Christ as a Prophet. Does the Christian religion give the same respect to Mohamed? (Don't take me wrong and assume I support terrorism though. There is no more pathetic form of expressing your opinion.) The big body of water between us has made a huge gap in our knowledge, lets fix that and learn. Heck, we have the technology don't we?
I've only been on this site for a few days and am impressed by the posts I've seen. Thank you for your intellectual insights, everyone! I hope the fact that I'm so blunt doesn't offend anyone.
[ June 13, 2003, 03:53 AM: Message edited by: Josh W ]
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Quara? She was my favorite of Novinha's children (except Olhado, I think). She was abrasive and had no respect for blah blah, like everyone's already said, but I thought she had a point, however wrong-headedly she went about expressing it.
I'm not sure if I have a least favorite character. I don't like the way Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, et al. are whitewashed in the Women of Genesis books. I see no reason to justify their mistakes by adding an extraneous (extrabiblical, at the very least) 'God told me to - no, really' when it is their very sin that makes their histories more powerful. But that's more saying I didn't like the characterization of those individuals, which isn't precisely the question.
OK, can't think of a character I hate - I keep thinking of ones people might suggest as their least favorite and thinking, But I like that one. But how about Alvin? That guy seriously needs to knock it off. Gets under my skin. Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Brock-
Now that you've defined a hero for us (or atleast the drive of one), what makes a monster?
--Locke
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Josh- I think most people know that Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, Christians consider Him to be the Son of God. You might not see the difference there, to Christians at least (I can't speak for Muslims) it's a huge one. Many differences that you consider to be minor between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are major differences to us, and integral to our faith.
NOTE: I know I'm not speaking for all Christians here. I think, in this post at least, I'm speaking for a great many of them.
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
--blacwolve
Ever notice how Christianity is Judaism + a savior and Islam is Christianity + another? (I know its much more complex. Just trying to get the gears going.)
--Locke
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
*shrugs*
If you want to think of it that way, I guess. A lot of people do, but a lot of people don't, too. It's just what you choose to believe.
Posted by Brock (Member # 5205) on :
Have you red Hyperion? Any agent of the TechnoCore fits the description. Particularly Councilor Albedo. The only possible Xception mentioned would be Ummon An AI that fought against the destruction of mankind.
I dont want to xplain the background it's pages long so i'll move on. The aides in China in the end of Shadow Puppets. They were men who were only out to further themselves. They are villains
Furthering yourself is fine, as long as you pay your own prices, I think, i'm not going to back this one up, that a man who's whole life is his career and himself, who has a family because its 'the thing to do' and who neglects them is a villain.
My definition is really simple i guess.
My heroes, like Peter, are working for the greater good, Peter works for world peace. Achilles works for world slavery, maybe it's peace in his definition but if everyone's dead or subdued i dont see it as peace, but as emptyness. Nothing, there's no peace in that only silence which is unnatural.
Peter was selfish for a long time. Alai was my hero then he still is my second choice. Alai is the caliph and leads all the muslims, probably he's the most powerful man in the world, but he was chosen and didn't wish to be there, When he was there however he didn't back down from his responsibilites.
Arthas from Warcraft III would qualify as a villain. While he was on the side of good he sacrificed everything for vengeance Which is a selfish pursuit, he claimed he wanted to defend his homeland but when he pursued Mal'Ganis away from his homeland After Mal'Ganis was in retreat it was personal. Palpatine was a villain, he wanted to rule by conquest and killed millions to atempt it.
Josh W
Ender was defending his home on earth when he annihilateed the buggers, i think he would've done it whether it was a game or not. It would've been harder for him, noone in a right state of mind wants to kill but he would've done it if he thought the buggers would kill him. Everything, person, or animal, fights to defend itself, it's family and it's territory.
~Brock ~three mothers you dont mess with, Mother Nature, Mothers-In-law, and Mother Freaken Ukranians!
Posted by Josh W (Member # 5253) on :
blacwolve-
I understand and respect that Christians believe Jesus to be The Son of God. I was raised Catholic and went to 8 years of Catholic school. The further I educate myself on other religions, both within and outside of Christianity, my opinions are changing and I now have a largely different set of beliefs. I don't think any religion is incorrect. Do I believe that Jesus is the Son of God? I certainly do. I also believe that we are all children of God. I recognize that Jesus was a great man and did incredible things for humanity. Was he a prophet or a messenger. I don't think we have ever really given him a proper name.
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Josh,
I tend to agree with you.
What proper name could we bestow? This sounds like an exercise in hubris. Not one that I would back away from, but... if you've got ideas, I'd like to hear them.
thanks for the post.
fil
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I loved Novinha - she was one of my favorite characters. I don't like what she did to her family with the chronic adultery, but I loved her fierce adaptation to devastation. Her parents' deaths isolated her, and then she inadvertantly killed her family. Besides, Ender loved her.
Of all the characters in the Ender books, Olhado I admired most, Valentine was who I wished I could be, but Novinha is the only one who is familiar. I can't believe y'all don't like her!
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
I hated Bean. How can soneone be so smart, and yet not see the big picture. In Ender's Shaddow he SAID that the only way to keep the buggers away from Earth was to destroy their home planet, and YET, he still didn't get it! Afterwards he got it, but only after he heard of the ansible!!! Maybe It's just because I'm 12, but that seems dumb to me.
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
I'd like to move for a ban on "sharing of age".
--Locke
Posted by Josh W (Member # 5253) on :
I don't know that a ban on "sharing of age" is needed, but there are some who tend to repeat it unnecessarily. In some of these cases a persons age could have been easily guessed.
Hubrus...had to look that one up...well put. I'm going to move this to a different thread, I like the original topic of this one.
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
Are you dissing me Josh?
Posted by Chamrajngar (Member # 3242) on :
why does everyone hate me? Just a question.
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
We don't hate you, or anyone, though, some of your comments have taken great steps in retarding many strong political discussions. I do however extend to you an olive branch and ask that you debate with a philosophical mindset. Welcome to "the works".
--Locke
Posted by njpom (Member # 5341) on :
quote:Ever notice how Christianity is Judaism + a savior and Islam is Christianity + another? (I know its much more complex. Just trying to get the gears going.)
It's not only more complex than that, it's totally different than that.
As an example, I'd only like to correct your understanding of Islam. Islam recognizes no deity (or deific figure) besides Allah. Allah is above all, unknowable, and remote from his creations. Allah has no humanlike attributes (in this sense, Allah is like a Nicean conception of God: no feelings, parts, or passions).
Christianity violates 2 main ideas in Islam: (a) Christ is God as Man; (b) there is an individual or personal link between God and Man (Christ).
(a) Islam does not accept any demigods (Christ as half-man, half-God) or an Incarnate God as most Christian sects do, so the elevation of Christ to anything higher than a mere man is blasphemous.
(b) For Islam, there is no intermediary possible between the unknowable, and all-powerful and man. Man's acts in following the dictates of scripture give him grace enough for eternal reward.
Anyway, I'd also go into how Christianity is a significant departure from Judaism, and not, as so glibly put "Judaism + a savior". Judaism would continue as is should the Messiah come tomorrow. They wouldn't magically become Christian.
Anyway, I'm not picking on *you*, as much as I'm nit-picking your "gears." Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Un-adultered Christian doctrine clearly states that Christ was neither demi-god, nor anything more than mere man. Christ was entirely of the flesh. It is also true that Christ does not serve as the "middleman" to God. This is a common misconception of "vicarious atonement". I don't care to explain it, because I know I'll be heartily rebuked for that which I've already said.
--Locke
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
Josh,
I'm somewhat in agreement with you except for the vagueness at the end. What do you suggest an appropriate name might be?
flish
Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
JLcke,
Excuse my ignorance. If Christ was not a middle man, then what was he?
flish
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
(resurrecting thread topic.)
I would have to say Roz,the 10 year old girl in Treasure Box. That little chick really creeped me out.
[ June 27, 2003, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by JLcke (Member # 5171) on :
Christ was both man and god. Not 50/50 or 75/25, but 100/100. His sacrifice vicariously atoned our "original sin". We don't negotiate with Christ in order to reach our Heaven. We are "saved" once and for always. If you know much about language, this would be a prime example of the aorist.
Lissa - And the deep, abiding compassion I would have, and she should have had, for her children? She destroyed her family.
I have a lot of empathy for people with problems and weaknesses that cause them to hurt themselves and others. But she had a problem with humility, and it destroyed her children. And practically to the end she wouldn't admit it was her fault.
I don't have kids because I won't screw them up. Even if the character is fictional, when I see other people do so because they can't freaking get over themselves, my compassion packs up and moves elsewhere.
[ June 27, 2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So why did Ender lover her so much?
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
I don't know, Kate. I would guess that he had a complex based on the near-irreparable damage he did to the Formics and felt the need to fix something that was broken, even if he hadn't himself broken it.
But that's just my guess.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote: Are you dissing me Josh?
quote: why does everyone hate me? Just a question.
I am reminded of my early Hatrack days BRCMTHO(before Ralphie chilled me the hell out )
Dude, nobody here hates you, and nobody is "dissing" you with a purpose to inflame. Relax man. It's all good. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Do you really credit me with chilling you the hell out, Nick?
Awwww. That's sweet.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
Ralphie - I know. She destroyed her family before they even existed; her children had no chance. They were lucky to turn out as well as they did. Believe me when I say that parents screwing their spouses and children is a delicate topic with me, but underneath my anger at Novinha is a small spot of understanding, which is what doesn't allow me to hate her.
I guess that was what I was trying to say, however stupidly the 'deep abiding compassion' comment came off. Her reasons for acting the way she did weren't as bad as others I've come in contact with (meaning she did think she was doing right: wasn't acting purely out of selfishness), which is perhaps a mitigating, though not white-washing, circumstance. *sigh* None of this makes sense, please don't listen to me any more. Babble from me should come as a surprise to no one. Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Lissa - No, I dig, baby.
I'm wondering if this is one of those things that separates, say, the Myers-Brigg's definition of "thinkers/feelers". A feeler is usually far more understanding of the inner turmoil that leads a person to make the choices they do while it seems thinkers are more likely to critique the outcomes of those decisions.
Not that a thinker can't be understanding, nor are feelers blind to consequences, but it seems to be a large factor in how much empathy you're going to feel for the person.
[ June 29, 2003, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Ralphie ]
Posted by Nessa Nu (Member # 5471) on :
Mebbekew, definitely. I didn't like Elemak too much, but at least he had some sort of pride...
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I really really dislike Thrower as a character, but not because he's varelse. (Warning: I haven't read past _Red Prophet_ yet.) Rather, I worry that I may be seeing one of Card's biases in him and it makes me unhappy.
I learned fairly recently that the Alvin Maker series is in some degree a retelling of Joseph Smith's life. I belong to the churches of Christ; like LDS, we believe in an apostasy and restoration of the church, and the closest corresponding figure to Joseph Smith is Alexander Campbell. (There are many differences; bear with me.) Campbell was a Scottish Presbyterian who immigrated to America and a skeptic about the supernatural. He also disliked Smith and his movement intensely. Sound familiar?
I'm hoping that I will find no more similarities, and that the ones I have seen are accidental. The comparison is disturbing enough as it is. I understand that in many ways Card "writes his faith", but I would like to think he's above this kind of subtle dissing. Still, I suppose 150 years of bad blood can have unpleasant effects on people.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
(for those who don't know) Alexander Campbell and Joseph Smith are not comparable in any substantive sense. Campbell was neither a prophet of God nor the founder of a religion (depending on the perspective of Smith you're coming from). He was one of the many people involved in the restoration movement of the 19th century. No more.
Note: The rest of this doesn't really bear on this particular thread; it's just the most recent thingy.
I've bitten my tongue for too long. Maccabeus, I do not understand why you feel compelled, in almost every post, 1) to, often superfluously, mention your membership in the churches of Christ, and subsequently 2) to make sweeping generalizations and high-handed, again superfluous, and putatively all-encompassing statements about what the church of Christ believes. You do not speak for the corporate entity. Isn't the whole point not to have a party line to toe?
I don't want this to sound, you know, mean or anything, but couldn't you argue the issues or discuss the topic at hand without invoking the church of Christ label at every turn or presenting your beliefs or opinions as authoritative doctrine? There is ample room, in many of the areas for which you define a church position, for differences of opinion which it seems to me you consistently fail to allow for.
I'm not saying censor your beliefs or opinions. I'm just requesting you present them only as such, and allow us the latitude to do the same without looking like shockingly heretical dissent-monkeys. Deal? (I mean, as an OSC fan, Harding associate, and member of the church, you're already set up to catapult to the upper middle of the 'people Lissa thinks are cool' list, given the above and some well-placed flattery... )
That is all.
[ August 14, 2003, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Lissande ]
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
I feel compelled to add, Maccabeus, that if you were to mention the idea that you thought the church had been completely apostasized in many churches I am personally familiar with, you would be kicked in the groin. Okay, probably just disfellowshipped, or maybe not invited to the potluck, but it is NOT a "c of C doctrine" that the church completely apostasized because many people read that to mean that God allowed his church to completely disappear from the earth for quite a spell. Several well-respected scholars (c of C and otherwise) would have your exegetical hide over that one.
Q.
[ August 14, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Gah...Lissande, I meant only that they stand as respective "founders" of their particular religious movement, neither of which is considered as the true founder by actual adherents. I was trying to explain in a nutshell without having to go into detail.
Lissande, I don't understand your aversion to my discussions. In this case I brought up religion because it was related to the problem I had with this character--it bothered me that Card seemed to be trying to lampoon Campbell.
I think in terms of religion. All the time. I have spent oodles of free time since 1994, when I entered Harding University, considering the underlying culture and values of the churches of Christ and studying our history, the former of which is rarely even explicitly discussed and the latter of which ignored. I am trying to determine if there is anything more to us than a list of rules of interpretation and their results. If you don't want me to talk about religion, fine...I will go elsewhere to talk about it. But I don't know that I will have anything more substantial to add to conversations than "I like this book" or "I don't like this book".
I think I may disagree with you about the appropriateness of having a "party line", at least about some things, but that is beside the point. When I talk about us, I am speaking a) about what I have observed in our histories, admittedly filtered through the writers and myself and b) in generalities, not absolutes. I recognize that we are not all the same and have never claimed we are. I am simply trying to abstract something more meaningful than "we all believe something different"; if that's all there is, then why call ourselves a church at all?
I'm sorry that I bother you so much. I don't know if this description of my motives will help, but for what it's worth, there it is.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
Lissande never said stop talking about religion, Maccabeus. In fact, she's all for it, from what I can tell. She just wants you to quit posing like the Pope of the c's of C - 'cause last I checked, we don't have one.
Look, I understand you've spent a lot of time studying this -and that's great! I'm a member, too, and constantly shocked by how little other members know about where the movement came from. I have all sorts of opinions, beliefs and thoughts about this, but I'm not about to say "we believe blah" when WE don't. There are plenty of things that the churches of Christ hold in common. There are plenty of things one can say "We believe" about. You don't seem to know the difference, though.
What Lissande said is right: you do not allow latitude when you express your thoughts, beliefs and even convictions as the wholesale doctrines of the c's of C. Sometimes I neither believe nor agree with some things you put forth as "we believe"s. Which is why I'm bothering to speak at all. I don't like for others to speak for me, particularly when they're not speaking for me.
While I agree that there are fundamental principles to which the members of the churches of Christ subscribe, I think that you too often make your own personal convictions binding on all members by putting them forth as absolute fact. All we're campaigning for is that you use "I think" or "I believe" once in a while. I don't exactly agree that we shouldn't or don't have a "party line." I just don't think you exercise judgement before speaking for all of us.
As Lissande said, you do not speak for the corporate entity. And no one is asking you to. Speak for yourself. I really do want to know what you think, believe and feel. And I want to know why. But I do not want you to say it as though I believe it. Grant me the opportunity and respect me enough to let me speak for myself, please.
I think that you missed the bulk of what Lissande was trying to say; I think you took unnecessary offense. I don't think anyone is trying to shut you up or belittle you, only to get you to be a little more accurate in what you say.
Q.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
asQmh> Perhaps you're right. I sometimes assume the churches of Christ hold more in common than they do. But so far as I could tell, with one or two exceptions I had been talking about things we _do_ hold in common, and I admitted the mistake on those and backed down.
I do not understand why saying "we believe this" is setting myself up as some kind of pope. To me it is just a slightly shortened way of saying "I believe this because of what I have learned in my experiences in the church, and I have seen this expressed in many other books and articles, so it seems to be something most of us believe and the rest of us won't find completely alien." I will try and find some other way of expressing that thought, but I don't know what else to say that won't have people shutting down before they get to my point.
I'm sorry if I seem to be overly sensitive. Within the last few months I have had people in the churches of Christ forum on Beliefnet tell me that the concept of restoration is outdated, wrong, and not worth discussing. I've seen some of the "new mainline" churches trying to drag us off toward union with the evangelicals, where I don't think we belong. I have encountered books by people who are willing to scuttle the entire "old-line" concept of Biblical authority for some supposed greater good, from some theological statement to women in the pulpit. I feel as if we are coming apart as a church and worry that we will be gone by the end of this century or before. Unlike the people you described, I _do_ think that the church has been out of existence before and that sometimes it must be started from scratch, so to speak--and I worry that we are approaching such a time again.
So when I mention something that I think is the common belief of nearly all churches of Christ and get yelled at and told it isn't, sometimes I freak out. I apologize.
If you and Lissande would be willing, maybe the three of us can discuss this in a separate thread, probably in the other forum, and perhaps come to a meeting of the minds.
Posted by asQmh (Member # 4590) on :
That's probably a good idea. I think that you have to realize that "We Believe' and "I believe based on this and it seems similar to" etc. ARE different things. One is NOT an abbreviated form of another.
I'd be happy to discuss it. I think we may come to a point at which we'll disagree. I take particular offense at your remarks about restoration, but I'll be happy to hash those out as well.
I think discussing it, though, would be a good idea. So if you're so inclined to start a thread, please do.
I'll even opt out of the snarky comment I was going to make concerning what "we believe" about male leadership*.
*note: this line is just sarcasm; tongue-in-cheek stuff I only half mean.
[ August 15, 2003, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: asQmh ]
Posted by SeasonalSnow (Member # 5548) on :
Valentine tends to bug me a lot. I don't exactly know why, she just gets on my nerves. Posted by Peruru Dragoon (Member # 2545) on :
I would have to say Novinha.
Posted by Ksig (Member # 5625) on :
Deffinitly Navinha! (spelling?) oh my gosh, when did i start caring about speling (yes i did the one L thing on purpose for all you blondes out there)
[ September 09, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Ksig ]
Posted by Nessa Nu (Member # 5471) on :
I think the difference between: "Jesus - a prophet" and "Jesus - the son of god" is a huge one for Muslims, too. They point out that *only god* can be divine, therefore he can't have a son/sons or a daughter/daughters (like some old Arab religions believe) who are imperfect human beings. Makes sense to me, actually. "He begets not, nor was He begotten." is written in the Quran. The Muslims do believe, though, that 1. Jesus was a prophet and that god supported him with miracles to "prove" that to people 2. his mother Mary gave birth to him as a virgin, but the explanation is not that god was his "father" as the Christians understand it. The Muslims explain: "when He (god) wills a thing, he says “Be!” and it is." 3. he did not die and the Jews did not kill him, rather god saved him from them and raised him up to heaven alive. 4. he will come back down at the end of time. Being raised as a catholic and being an atheist now it is still quite interesting to study different religions. For Islam I can say that the more I study it, the lesser I have terrorism associations, really. You can produce terrorism/war etc. out of many religions, *if you want*, not only out of Islam.
[ September 10, 2003, 01:23 AM: Message edited by: Nessa Nu ]
Posted by Morgaine (Member # 4691) on :
A character that I hate . . .
I suppose it would have to be the William Henry Harrison as portrayed by the Alvin Maker series. I know it's not the real history, but something about him, I just couldn't stand. Maybe it's the part Native American blood in my veins, or just that I'm a minority and sympathise with the Indians. But I couldn't hear his name in history class and not start fuming. I was 13 when I read the book for the first time. Sometimes I still feel it today.
I don't know anything about the real William Henry Harrison, and I should find out, because I hate him already, and that's not really a good thing . . .
A close runner up would be Calvin Miller/Maker.
Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
I don't really know that I hate any character... but I do know that alot of people seem not to like Peter Wiggin, but I think that's after you read the Shadow series, it becomes easier to understand why he was the way he was. Plus, it was in his genetics, right? Remember when he simply tested too aggressive? Perfect with the only flaw being aggressiveness. I guess if I chose someone, it would be Ela. But remember back before Miro went to catch up with Valentine and Jakt and their family in space. So Ender was still about 30 and the Ribeira children were still children by age. Remember when Ender went to go talk to Ela by the lake and Ela seemed really nice? Why is that? She must've had a really rough 30 years when Miro went into space. Maybe it was Miro's not being there...hmmm...I dunno. Wasn't Quara the one who never spoke to anyone. Ohhhh!!! I just realized, Quara was the mean one, the one I don't like. So Ela is really the one who was nice to Ender when he spoke to her by the lake. I guess Quara was just...different...what kind of person is stand-offish as a child and grows into being a mean-spirited person? I don't know, but she was definetley needed as a character in the Speaker series. So yes, Quara is the one I don't like.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down"
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I put my vote in for Mamie. Her treatment of Carol Jeanne unearthed my unending desire for FAIRNESS. I get really really upset in books and stories when people are punished unfairly. [side note: Because of this, Harry Potter 5 had me boiling over. I don't think I've hated a character quite as much as I've hated Umbridge....] Anyway, back to Lovelock. I remember growling at that book. The awful thing is, she started to fit right in with the 'community.'
My second vote is just pure irritation...that would have to be Isaac in Rebekah. This makes me sad because my religious self wants to love him and think he's perfect. I thought he was so annoyingly self-condemning in the book...and then comes the fairness thing again with Esau and Jacob. He was so snarky and moody all the time too. Arrrgh.
Posted by Youth ap Orem (Member # 5582) on :
I see a lot of people putting Mamie as the one the hate the most. But, I think her son Red was a lot worse than her. He cheated on Carol Jeanne, he used the kids against her, always took his mother's side in any of their fights, and when Carol Jeanne finally confronted him about cheating she still wanted to work it out, while he used it as a way to get rid of her, and stick her with his mom. He was so two-faced as well, being such a great guy in front of everyone else, while at home he was an ass. Also, the two patients he had, he had an affair with both of them. Jeez, I hate that guy.
Posted by Eruve Nandiriel (Member # 5677) on :
My two cents: Even though lots of people hated Novinha, and she was really obnoxios, I still pitied her. However, Quara really got on my nerves in the last couple of books. The other person I hate would be Gloriously Bright. She was just so arrogant, stuck up, vain, stubborn.. ..well, you get my point. And surprisingly I didn't like Sister Carlotta much either. Don't ask me why. And of course there were the characters that you're supposed to hate: Bonzo, Achilles, Bernard, Baba Yaga, etc, etc...
Just for the record, I like Bean. I think he was a very interesting character, and I can't wait to find out if he gets so big that his head explodes . I also think Ela was a great, well-rounded character, not to mention she was what really held her family together.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
*Spoilers*
I'd say Graff. He was so underdeveloped; sometimes he was a grandfather figure, the next he was the devil incarnate, and it made absolutely no sense for him to change where he changed.
I don't hate Qin Jao, Quara, or Novinha that much because I can understand why they'd feel like that. For Qin Jao, I mean, how would you feel if somebody told you that you're foundation for every one of your beliefs was a myth? What would you think if someone told you that gravity is an affect of a mental illness and they have the ability to remove that from you? I, for one, am plenty happy standing upright, feet on the ground, and I would refuse to accept that anectdote and would refuse to believe that gravity doesn't exist. To Qin Jao, the OCD was like gravity.
And for Novinha: She was a bitch, yes, but think about why she was a bitch. With the exception of her children, which were almost too young to fully understand what she was going through at the time, everybody she loved died from unnatural causes. And she was at the very center of it. I would definitely isolate myself from people, at least for a few years, after that.
And Quara: think who raised her? My dad likes The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and John Denver; and I like The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and John Denver. My mom likes JRR Tolkien, and I like JRR Tolkien. I also have, basically, the same moral beliefs and religion as my parents. Coincidence? Not likely. Quara was raised by two parents who hated themselves, and when you hate yourself, you hate others more, even your children. She was also the youngest girl so she would naturally be the closest (or want to be the closest) to her angst-ridden mother. Oh, and remember that she and Grego were the youngest when Marcao died and the truth about their identities were uncovered. How would you feel if, at a young and tender age, you learned that you hadn't just lost one dad, but two, and that - surprise, surpise - the replacement for both of them was another angst ridden fool who thought he had killed, not a few friends and family, but an entire species.
I didn't much care for Qin Jao's whispers in Children of the Mind, though. About 1/4 of them were whines about how her father betrayed her. In my opinion, she should be pitying her father for being so easily confused by a false go (Jane).
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
Macc and all the c of C-ers out there-
I don't think Campbell and Thrower can be directly analogized. I've just been over the results of a search for Sidney Rigdon/Alexander Campbell (Sidney was a former disciple of Campbell and caused a stir by going over to the Mormons and rising quickly). It is clear to me that Campbell's dislike for the Mormons is pronounced. I suspect that Sidney isn't wholly to blame for this. However, the claim is made again and again by Campbell that Rigdon was the real author and founder of the doctrines of the Mormon church. This is not a position that can be supported by the facts, btw. Other similar casualties: Orson Hyde, Parley Pratt, Orson Pratt, Lyman Wight, Edward Partridge and Fredric Williams - a roster of early leaders of the church, basically.
So - while there was plenty of bad blood between Campbell and the LDS church (surprising to none), most of it stems from a large number of faithful and effective disciples going from one church to another. The number of switchers is not surprising, considering that they are both "restorations". Campbell proved himself to be right - his assertion that a proliferation of sects aids contention is shown clearly in his own anger.
Thrower is a different beast entirely. He embodies arrogance mated to shallow understanding. (Campbell was a serious student of the scriptures.) The desires of Thrower's heart are glory and majesty (for himself) and the ability to stand over others. I don't think Campbells motivations were similar, though I haven't read thoroughly enough to say. Once coopted by his Visitor, Thrower's priorities change - he is now solely bent on destroying Alvin. There is no evidence I have seen that says Campbell had any significant desire to do the same with Smith - his opinions on Smith himself are hardly noticable. It's all about Rigdon There was substantial vitriol between the churches in their day, but neither focused on the other to the exclusion of all else.
Thrower has given himself to evil. He is a type for the clergy members of Joseph's time whose bloodthirst and anger were expressed in mobs, assasination attempts and individual violence, men unworthy of their callings. My own great-great-grandfather (not a LDS member at the time) almost died in an attempt to save a missionary from the local clergyman, who was attempting to drown the poor fellow. The attempt to drown the missionary and the later retaliation of the clergyman were serious enough that my grand*father caught tuberculosis as a result. There were plenty of this sort of person around, apparently, and they are the models for Thrower.
Thrower also knows Alvin to have the powers he has. He fights Alvin because he's under the impression that these powers are of the devil. Campbell's simply a skeptic - he thinks of Mormons as "deluded", not dangerous.
I think Campbell is safe. He was certainly starting from a more correct set of ideas than most others of his time, IMHO. If any analogy can be drawn, it's that Campbell disliked Joseph and Mormons.
As for Card - it's unlikely that there's bad blood. Few Mormons can be moved to any particular emotional state by the mention of Alexander Campbell. Those who paid attention in Seminary might remember that he was a mentor of Sidney Rigdon, but he's not really mentioned beyond that. From informed people, you might get a reaction of "Ah! The one who wanted a restoration of the gospel, right? He did a good job of pulling people together for us in Kirtland."
Alden
[ September 18, 2003, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Stradling ]
Posted by Stradling (Member # 1182) on :
As for whhich character I hate the most - I can't really say I hate any of them - Card doesn't set up straw men that you can just go and hate, generally. The ones that frustrate me the most are Quara, Novinha and Quing-Jao. The ones that make me saddest are Sugar (in Unaccompanied Sonata) and Angel (Wyrms). The one I fear most is Achille, but he's kind of a bugbear - not well developed, just pathological. The ones I most despise are Cavil Planter and Calvin.
Alden
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, I'm not too fond of Abner Doon at this point, but I haven't finished the book yet.....
Posted by Shartae (Member # 5688) on :
The most annoying one that I've ever read was Speaker For the Dead.
*pulls hair* Id read it, then put it down, pick it up again... and FINALY it would get interesting.
*rolls on floor* That drives me nuts when a book does that!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
While I don't agree with that statment--even thought it's very funny--I agree with the sentiment behind it. I dislike Novinha a lot also. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Afterwards he got it, but only after he heard of the ansible!!! Maybe It's just because I'm 12, but that seems dumb to me.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
..well, you get my point. And surprisingly I didn't like Sister Carlotta much either. Don't ask me why. And of course there were the characters that you're supposed to hate: Bonzo, Achilles, Bernard, Baba Yaga, etc, etc...