Have you ever noticed that entirely different series of Card's books will draw on the same basic set of background rules? It's almost like they take place in a single, contiguous universe in which:
Human souls are linked by literal threads that can be observed and manipulated. [Homecoming series, Speaker series]
The smallest indivisible particles of matter respond to the wills of those who comprehend them. [Alvin series, Speaker series]
Powerful leaders hold onto their position through secret Machiavellian networks of super-assassins and spies. [Songmaster, Wyrms, Treason]
Heroes develop adult-level wisdom and perception before the age of six. [Too many to list.]
Any other trends? To qualify, a trait has to appear in at least two separate series ...
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Yes.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Nearly all of the protagonists are or end up married...
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
The defining characteristic of a person is not memory, but the underlying will (Speaker, Worthing, Wyrms).
Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
In the last chapter of my book (pause for the commercial) I identify these common themes in Card:
1. The Terrible Choice 2. The Talented Young Person 3. The Team 4. Male and Female in Partnership 5. It Is Essential That We Try To Understand Each Other 6. We Are Not Alone: Help Is Always There 7. Card's Place In The Endless Chain of Immortal Themes 8. What Card Hopes For His Readers
Grandma Edie, also known as Edith S. Tyson, author of ORSON SCOTT CARD: Writer of the Terrible Choice. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Wow, I should go out and get myself a free copy of that book! Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*throws a nasty look at Geoff*
At one point I made a pretty good mental list of all the things I could find that were in three or more Card books. I wish I'd written it down.
[EDIT: If anyone thinks this post was just an excuse to throw a nasty look at Geoff, they're right. But I hope he knows the only reason I throw a nasty look at him is to get him to say hi to me. Or yell at me, recognition is all I ask. ]
Hobbes
[ October 24, 2003, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
[whines] My library is "consolidating" whatever that means. Except I have a feeling it means they will not be buying scholarly literary critism books just because I want them to anymore. Also, they took down the fiction desk, and moved the nonfiction desks, and consolidated them in the worse possible place. And they replaced the nonfiction desk with the New Fiction shelves, nevermind that it's in the middle of the NONFICTION department. AND they replaced the fiction desk with a table and a computer terminal!! I'm so glad I'll be leaving for college next year. [/whines]
Yes, it's random, I just had to let it out somewhere, it makes me so annoyed! Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
To answer the original question:
Plaonic love in marriage (Pastwatch, Homecoming, Alvin Maker a little bit)
Strong ties between siblings [Alvin and Calvin, Ender and Valentine, Luet and Hushidh, Sevet and Kokor]
I'm not sure this answers your original question, but it seems to me like Card's three main series are a sort of history of Mormonism. I mean, I know it's obvious in Homecoming and Alvin Maker, but really isn't the Ender series also sort of about future Mormonism? I might just be seeing things that aren't there. But to me the Mormon influence in the later Ender books (Xenocide, Children of the Mind) is nearly as strong as it is in the Alvin books. Granted, I'm not Mormon and all I know about Joseph Smith is what the beginning of the Book of Mormon says; so there might be a lot more I'm not picking up on.
Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
quote: Strong ties between siblings [Alvin and Calvin, Ender and Valentine, Luet and Hushidh, Sevet and Kokor]
You forgot the strongest pair, Nafai and Elemak. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Very true. Hudish even comments on it. I haven't read Homecoming in a bit, but she mentions how strong a connection hate can sometimes make.
Hobbes Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
Hudish? It must have really been a LONG time since you have read Homecoming Hobbes.
*cough*Hushidh*cough* Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It has been, too long a time.
Hobbes Posted by Wetchik (Member # 3609) on :
It's all good Hobbes. You should read it again. The series gets better every time you read it. I've read it six times. Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
<--*Has read every book in it over 50 times*
Just haven't in too many months. (And can't spell anyways).
Hobbes Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I should have seen the very strange spelling I came up with when I was talking to Marek, I'm surprised he even knew what I was saying.
Posted by Marek (Member # 5404) on :
I had no idea you spelled it wrong blacwolve, I'm Dyslexic, I mainly learned recognize names by the way they look in general, I had no idea what Wetchik was hinting at until Hobbes mentioned spelling, and even then it took me a minute. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Oh, well, you spelled it right, so I assumed you knew. Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
Blackwolve: Have you seen my post on the thread for "his first book" offering to loan you CAPITOL and HOT SLEEP, as you requested?
Since you didn't answer, I loaned HOT SLEEP to rivka, who sent her mailing address to me at edithtyson@yahoo.com.
I am holding CAPITOL to loan to you, if you still want it. Send me your mailing address, either here or at my email, above.
Grandma Edie
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Wow. You rock Grandma Edie!
[Post not edited by eslaine on October 27, 2003]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: [Post not edited by eslaine on October 27, 2003]
Yet. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Wow! No, I didn't, sorry. I never actually thought you'd loan it, that's so cool! I'm so excited. I'm emailing you now. Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Grandma Edie already mentioned the theme of the importance of understanding one another, but there is also a paradoxical reccurence of the admission that we will never understand one another.
There is also a pattern of characters who simultaneously hate and love each other.
Posted by Jill (Member # 3376) on :
blacwolve- What Mormon influences are in the Speaker series?
Posted by Grandma Edie (Member # 5771) on :
Brinestone, you are right.
Instead of listing one of Card's themes as "It Is Essential That We Try To Understand Each Other" I SHOULD have said the theme was "It Is Essential That We KEEP TRYING To Understand Each Other."
Grandma Edie
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think Ender's Game is about the only one without some reference to sodomy or homosexuality. But I don't know if that really constitutes a theme. Also, why do I consider Dinah's sexual harassment part of life, but when Charlie can relate, it suddenly forms a blip on my "gaydar"? My problem, I'll deal with it. :edit- I have OCD, I really do have a problem : Okay, and there are Vowels in pretty much all of the titles.
[ October 28, 2003, 06:42 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Philotes, and the theories about them, also the theories and conclusions about the universe that the characters come to, all appear to me to stem from what Mormons believe about the nature of the universe. Perhaps someone who's actually Mormon can explain this better?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The Elegant Universe, a Nova series that involves string subatomic theory, is starting this week, here at least. "Check your local listings" Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote: The Elegant Universe, a Nova series that involves string subatomic theory,
English please?
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
pooka -- well, the aliens in Ender's Game are called the "Buggers"...
but I don't think of Card's writing about homosexuality as being a significant theme in his books. (in his essays certainly, but not so much in his fiction.)
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Nova is a Show about scientists going around doing what they do on the Public Broadcast System (in America...? I'm assuming this may be why you haven't heard of it). They sell videos at PBS.org.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, I was wondering what string subatomic theory was.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Perhaps someone who's actually Mormon can explain this better?
A large part of this comes from common Mormon folk ideas, rather than from solid scriptural doctrine. But the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent being who imposed order on pre-existing chaotic matter is straight out of Mormon theology.
Mormons reject the idea of creation "ex niliho", and our unique scriptures actually assert that matter cannot be created or destroyed We believe that God made the universe from stuff that already existed in some primordial state, and that we ourselves have also existed, in some form or another, for eternity. We were never created. Instead, God found us and gave us life.
This is how Mormons solve the problem of evil. God didn't make anyone good or bad. A person's moral character has been a part of them forever. God merely gave us the chance to act out our predilections ... either proving ourselves or damning ourselves by our actions.
Though it is never stated in scripture and isn't the most common of beliefs, there is also a folk idea among Mormons that all things possess some small degree of moral intelligence, which explains, to some degree, the occurrence of miracles. Most of the time, these "lower" forms of intelligence obey the laws of physics by instinct, but if persuaded by God, or by a faithful believer, they can choose to behave in unusual ways.
So when Ender discovers that there is an "Outside" universe, where semi-sentient philotes are gathered, awaiting some willful being to give them life and purpose, a Mormon reader will chuckle and feel like part of an inside joke
[ October 30, 2003, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*Throws another nasty look at Geoff*
Seems like I always have to do that twice before you wave...
quote:So when Ender discovers that there is an "Outside" universe, where semi-sentient philotes are gathered, awaiting some willful being to give them life and purpose, a Mormon reader will chuckle and feel like part of an inside joke
Or in the case of the Homecoming series, try to sue.
Hobbes Posted by Poseidon (Member # 5862) on :
i would like to say that the first thing in the list of the original post, the thing about people being connected, also happened in Alvin Maker. theres something about Alvin and Arthur Stuart being "connected" by a "string" in Prentice Alvin.
wow-- this is my first post and these smilies are AWESOME. yay! Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
quote: there are Vowels in pretty much all of the titles.
Pretty much? Would someone please care to tell me which title doesn't have a vowel?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Welcome to the forum, Poseiden.
quote: Actually, I was wondering what string subatomic theory was
:sigh: It's complex. Basically it's an attempt to replace subatomic particles in quantum theory with loops or strings. So in atoms, electons, protons and neutrons would all be strings. These strings "vibrate" in a similar or analogous way to a plucked guitar strings, with various vibration patterns corresponding to different particle energy levels in non-string quantum theory. Collisions and interactions between strings and fields cause changes in the vibration waves of the strings involved. Also, the strings vibrate in a 10-dimensional space, in which the extra 6 dimensions are rolled up or "compactified" so to human perception all we see are 3 space and 1 time dimension, with the extra 6 space dimensions being far to small to see! The math involved is said to be elegant, logical and ahead of it's time but I have not studied the math nor do I understand it. The theory has many enthusiastic supporters among mathematicians and physicists yet there is no consensus it is correct. I think it has not been rigorously established experimentally, but I could be out date on the experimental front. Actually, the energies needed to differentiate between string theory and non-string theory being more correct physical models are tremendous, and might not be achieved by experimenters for years to come. As far as I know it remains a pretty theory with some cool math. It is important because it is an early attempt at a Unified Field Theory, the Holy Grail of 21st century mathematical physics. This is just a quick overview of string theory, hope I answered your question blacwolf. If you get a chance to see the Elegant Universe, they go into much more detail (yet still accessable to laymen), with some killer graphics.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Morbo, since you know this much, I was wondering something. Why is it necessary for the other 6 dimensions to be "rolled up small"? Wouldn't it be sufficient that we just don't have the sensory equipment to perceive them?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Macc, you can suppose that there are dimensions we cannot percieve. But then you just have to deal with why we could not perceive them. If we are, hypothetically, 10-dimensional creatures living in a 10-dimensional universe, why do we only perceive 4 of those dimensions? Or replace 10 with n>4, I think there are some theories that use n other than 10. Also, I think the compactifaction is related to the Big Bang, expansion of the universe, and vacuum energy densities, but I would have to research that to speak with any authority.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I was under the impression that the latest theory was 17 dimensions.
Ohh and, Welcome to Hatrack! The smilies are great, aren't they?
Hobbes Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I thought it was 11?
How can a dimension be small?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Like spaghetti.
Spaghetti is actually 3D, but it's so thin, it kinda looks like it only has one dimension -- the other two are "rolled up" into the one we can see.
Posted by shicker (Member # 5853) on :
have you ever read the rama trilogy? where would you put them books in your list?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hobbes, you're probably more up to date on post-1990 physical theory than I. I did throw in that caveat about n-dimensional theories. Has there been any experimental verification of string theory?
Rivka, fairly good analogy. Also, blackwolf, picture a map on 2-d paper. (ignore the fact that paper is actually 3-d). Now roll up the map, so tightly it almost looks like a thin line. Now you've reduced a 2-d object into what is seeming a 1-d object or line. The 2-d dimensions are still there, but they are less important. These are only analogies or models and are just to help illustrate and visualize dimension compactifacation. I don't understand it on a mathematically rigorous basis, and nobody completely understands the processes in which 6 or more theoretical dimensions essentially "vanish" out of our perceptions, yet remain in equations.
It's tough to keep up with modern cosmology and particle theory. I have barely scratched the surface on dark matter and now some jokers come up with dark energy!?!? It never ends, and I have to sleep sometime.
[ November 02, 2003, 05:49 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I see what you are saying, Morbo. Still, it could be that _we_ are rolled up small--that our n-dimensional extensions are too thin to be worth perceiving, and so we have no senses that can look in those directions. I'm assuming that there is some deeper rationale that I am missing, because I never see this suggested in books on cosmology.
Either that, or some very smart people've got one heckuva blind spot.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: Still, it could be that _we_ are rolled up small-
I think according to the theory all particles have interaction with all the dimensions. I don't know the particulars. But we are certainly rolled up small in the hidden dimensions if the theory is true, because all particle would be small in the hidden dimensions and we are made of those particles..
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm glad you liked the spaghetti analogy, Morbo. It's my dad's. And when I asked him about it this afternoon, he said it has to be uncooked spaghetti, really thin. "Spaghettini?" I asked. He laughed, and agreed.
I asked him about current string theory. He says there are supposed to be either 10 or 11 dimensions, "depending how you count dimensions." I dunno, ask him. And that there is no experimental evidence that entirely supports string theory; but some that offers tantalizing hints at something. (I think.) Anyway, he says that even his colleagues who are pro-string theory have to agree that the jury's still out.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Julie- I was being facetious, though now that I think about it WYRMS is a close call. Also, many of the books are now translated into Hebrew.
On "Elegant universe" there was the physicist whose theory may be supplanted by string theory, and his attitude was, like, if a dimension falls in the forest and there is no experiment to prove it, did it really happen?
[ November 05, 2003, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Also, many of the books are now translated into Hebrew.
Yup. But some of them still have vowels. Posted by AkindredSpeaker (Member # 5899) on :
Just a thought on the OSC Universe...
I'm not very familiar with Mormon ideas either, but I have noticed similarities in the books to Christian Science and manifestation in general (the idea that what you believe in enough becomes reality).
Its very similar to traveling Outside... I forget the exact quote but something about wishing themselves there. Also similar are the creations that happen while Outside.
I'm just barely learning about manifestation myself but it is used in some healing techniques like Reki (did I spell that right?) which reminds me of Alvin's abilities. Just something to munch on
-Adrienne
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
The seperation of people into fluid groups of 'good' and 'bad.' (Emelaki/Nafai; raman/varelse)
Posted by ulyadd (Member # 5957) on :
men who do well in terms of monetary means but think they stand alone like a stone, and without love (Ender, Quentin Fears, Don Lark)
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I just read Wyrms for the first time yesterday. I noticed some similarity between it and Enders Game because in both an older alien species is destroyed... but not utterly, the memory of them is still there.
But if in the story it comes down to the familiar vs. the foreign genetic material the foreign is what gets destroyed. There is a lot more agonizing over it in xenocide but a lot of the same ideas are in Wyrms. I don't know if it is truly the "terrible choice" idea or not though.
AJ
Posted by Julie (Member # 5580) on :
What about the whole really smart computer programs thing? (EG, Homecoming, that's all that I've read that I've noticed it in) Does two things constitute a pattern?
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
So why is it, then, that OSC denies working with Theme in his interviews? It seems there are obviously themes he works with whether or not he "intends" them to be there. And I wonder if he ever looks at his work and purposely tries to write something different, outside of the theme, just for practice/fun?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
I think that the Underlying Theme in Cards books is the LDS conception of the afterlife. After all it draws on the fact that if our souls are Auias(sp?) then they are just as eternal as any God could be, so if we gain sufficient wisdom and power (Jane, Alvin) we get to be a little God and create a universe in our image.
This is the Heresy that throws the rest of the religious and Christian world into fits over the Mormons. However it is something that has become more and more mainstream in acceptance.
It is a doctrine of heaven that makes sense. After all for generations it has been popular to speak of creating ones own hell, why not ones own heaven?
I think this concept bridges the gap between fantasy and sience fiction through the gateway of the uncertainty principle and the fact that the observer acts on the observed. No author since Roger Zealazney has done it as well.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
]![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
(And can't spell anyways).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
English please?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
yay! ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)