Hatrack River Forum: Getting sick of "Making Babies"

This is topic Getting sick of "Making Babies" in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003452

Posted by llodlean (Member # 2057) on :

Hi guys,
Now, I'll apologise for the flame/rant here, and will acknowledge it for what it is from the on set.

I'm a fan of the entire Ender/Shadow series, but one element of the two most recent books which niggles at me when I read them, which is Mr Card's apparent obsession with the books underlying theme: "The best way to have all the power you need is to have a large family"

The phrase "Making babies" has become a red cape to me in both Shadow Puppets and SOTG. I mean, I understand what is being said, make babies, not war. Petra was happier having a family than a conquest over other countries, and in all honesty, I wish it had been left with that. The constant diatribes from many and various characters about the joy and value of 'making babies' was out of place, and over done. Once, I would accept it, but the sheer volume of the books devoted to this theme was over the top, and in my humble opinion, unneccessary.

I'm not saying that there should be no theme within the books other than political intrigue etc. by all means put in the romance, give me moral themes, hell, I don't even mind one or two religeous undertones, but with whatever is include, why oh why must we, the readers, be beaten over the head with it?

For me it ruined Shadow Puppets, and came close to destroying SOTG (although the smaller volume of this content in that book meant it didn't impact upon me too much.)

Did anyone else find this continual inclusion infuriating, or am I just a heartless reader, devoid of family values? [Wink]

Edit: Wow! What a coincidence! my last post was almost exactly a year from this post! Talk about subconcious rememberance of this forum [Razz]

[ July 18, 2005, 05:30 AM: Message edited by: llodlean ]

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :

Uh-oh. [ducks the inevitable onslaught of criticism]

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

Poor ducks...

-Bok

Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :

I know little about the Mormon religion, but apparantly OSC has all kinds of subtle Mormon refrences in his books. Don't Mormons usually have a big family?

Note: Feel free to correct me in any way.

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :

He has all kinds of subtle references, Mormon and otherwise, in his books. One thing I've heard him say more than once is not to apply things characters say and do to him. He's not speaking through Petra and encouraging large families because that's the Mormon party line.

If anything, he's doing it because the story required it, and it's what Petra wanted. She wanted something of Bean left once he was gone. I think the phrase "making babies" is your term for families? Maybe you're talking about Theresa's speech to Peter about how family is the most important thing in the world? I would think that's almost common sense, and maybe you, like Peter, are too young to see it.

A family typically consists of at least a mother, father, and one child. So yes, "making babies" is an important part of family life. I don't think the number of babies has any significance.

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :

Mormons do tend to have large families, as they view success as a parent as being much more important than success in the workplace.

But Card's particular views on child-rearing, and the language he uses to describe them, are his own. His use of "subtle Mormon references" is less significant than the fact that AS a Mormon, all of his own favorite ideas are shaped, to some degree, by his beliefs and culture. Most of the time, he isn't trying to plant Mormon in-jokes into his fiction, as much as he is simply trying to tell a story that is important and meaningful to him.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

quote:

If anything, he's doing it because the story required it, and it's what Petra wanted.

In all honesty, though, I'm often skeptical of what OSC says in this regard. In many cases, I get the impression that he assumes his characters would want something because they're good, intelligent people, and he assumes that all good, intelligent people would do or say these things in similar situations.

Here's a short list of SPOILERY bits that have given me that vibe:

1) Petra's amazing desire for children.
2) Mrs. Wiggin's speech to Bean
3) Anton's (?) decision to marry and have children, despite being gay
4) Mack's resolve to marry Yolanda, despite not loving her (and in fact despite her insistence that the whole marriage would be an unnecessary sham), just to have sex with her in order to save the world

In all these cases, the actions of the character didn't ring true to me -- but I've asked OSC about each of them, and each time he's said that they're what he felt the character would have done in that situation. While I'm hardly entitled to second-guess the author as to his character's motivations, I'm pretty sure that OSC is being sincere; to him, these are the obvious choices for that character.

But I believe that he thinks they're the obvious choices because he's written smart, moral characters, and he believes that these are the only smart, moral choices they could have made. I'm skeptical, though, that the characters themselves, were they real, would have recognized these as their only options.

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :

I agree with you on #4, but I'm with OSC on the rest.

I hate the "sham marriage" part of Magic Street.

Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :

Oddly enough, I have 5 children and I'm not mormon or catholic. I'm not sure I ever sat down and defined my motivation or desire to have a large family. Likewise, I don't think males are analyzing their excessive hormonal level during puberty and young adulthood. It seems to me that it's a natural desire to procreate whether with altruistic motivation or without self awareness. (generally speaking)

As for the marriage/sex with Mack and YO, the scene sounded like something from Kama Sutra. (sex should be a spiritual connection more than a physical act). Mack insisted on a non-legal marriage to hold onto his identity, humanity and/or self preservation, while remaining in denial about who/what he was housing thus maintaining his altrusism. Yo, also remained altrustic by her definition of 'sex.' I thought it was amusing personally. It's a non-worldly relationship with YO, and therefore no law could join them anyhow.

Authors who throw in sex and violence in lieu of creativity is more frustrating and insulting.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

Roseauthor--it sounds like you are saying humans are fated to make too many kids, then fight wars to reduce the excess population, forever and ever, til the sun goes out. Is that correct?

Posted by Gosu (Member # 5783) on :

llodlean here has just subconciously utilized a trick that many salesman, telemarketers, and politicians use all the time. He starts with a premise that appears to be completely factual and then argues about his opinion about that fact. The result is that the reader or listener will argue about his opinion on the subject and take for granted the subject of the argument. The key is that the debate about the opinion is easily winnable.

llodlean asks us whether or not the theme about making big families and having many babies is necessary--which it is absolutely not--and thus he wins that argument, the one about opinions. Of course, that's was never a theme in any of Card's stories in the first place, so the given was completely off.

All of sudden a theme, in llodlean's exact words an "underlying theme", is a repetition of a phrase? Or certain things that some of the characters might have wanted?

Edit: And I am in no way saying you purposefully tried to "trick" us or anything...I'm just stating what's wrong with your argument. By the way, do you spell it "argument" or "arguement"?

[ July 18, 2005, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Gosu ]

Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :

quote:
3) Anton's (?) decision to marry and have children, despite being gay

Waaaaaaaait a minute, how is he gay? One of my best friends is Bi and to my mind Anton doesn't have any kind of characteristic that would identify with it nor has he to my knowledge said or done anything to imply it. Either somebody misinterpreted something or I'm naive.

Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :

quote:
A family typically consists of at least a mother, father, and one child. So yes, "making babies" is an important part of family life.

I just want to point out that my family (which consists of a husband, a wife, and no babies) is not really all that atypical. When my husband and I refuse to overcommit ourselves in any one of many ways, we often explain that we are doing so due to our commitment to our family.

I'm not taking offense in any way -- just makes me feel better to mention it.

Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :

Sid: Anton specifically mentions being gay several times, particularly in Shadow Puppets.

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

I feel like OSC isn't necessarily encouraging *large* families, but having families at all. His characters in the Shadow series emphasize that once you have children, everything else's importance diminishes - where it doesn't directly affect your family.

This could be why so many youthful liberals grow up to be Republicans.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

Republicans being, of course, the party of "family values?" *raises eyebrow*

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Republicans being, of course, the party of "family values?" *raises eyebrow*

To get it out of the way: I'm quite liberal, and relatively young (22).

Attributing "family values" to any political party is just silly, since depending on your sphere of subjectivity, your definition of "family values" changes.

I was referring to the stereotypical Republican economic policy: reduce taxes and public spending. While a lot of my friends (myself included) object to that viewpoint because we'd rather have well-funded public systems than a bigger refund check, someone with a family-centric standpoint might choose to have more money to spend on their families as they choose (or, more importantly, as they deem necessary).

Maybe I should have added the qualifier "middle-class."

Posted by Roseauthor (Member # 148) on :

Steven: I wasn't saying that at all. (I'm not usually given to extremes) However since asked, I do believe nature will take care of balancing out the universe if such should occur. In as much as the animal kingdom has a balance, and we are part of that ecosystem.

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Roseauthor:
Steven: I wasn't saying that at all. (I'm not usually given to extremes) However since asked, I do believe nature will take care of balancing out the universe if such should occur. In as much as the animal kingdom has a balance, and we are part of that ecosystem.

Agreed. It's too bad we keep circumventing nature's attempts to balance us (modern medicine, hygenics, etc.), leaving nature no option but "the big balance"...e.g. a massive population die-off of biblical proportions.

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :

Are you seriously claiming that modern medicine and hygiene are BAD things?

Posted by llodlean (Member # 2057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:
llodlean here has just subconciously utilized a trick that many salesman, telemarketers, and politicians use all the time.

Whilst Gosu appears to have used that other technique that is favoured by the same crowd, in discussing how a post has been framed, rather than discussing the post itself.

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:

Of course, that's was never a theme in any of Card's stories in the first place, so the given was completely off.

And this, I’m afraid is an example of exactly what I am accused of. In Gosu’s opinion, it was never a theme. Perhaps we could see this as a subjective element of the stories, something that some have seen in the books (as evidenced by many replies to this thread) and that others have not (as evidenced by Gosu’s reply.)

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:

All of sudden a theme, in llodlean's exact words an "underlying theme", is a repetition of a phrase? Or certain things that some of the characters might have wanted?

I’m loathe to resort to dictionary definitions, but hey, what better way to examine this element of Gosu’s argument.

According to your friend and mine, dictionary.com, a theme is a ‘An implicit or recurrent idea; a motif’

If we look at the all knowing Google, we find the following definition: A topic of discussion or writing.

Other definitions look at the word ‘theme’ in the context of a major theme of a book, such as ‘In literature (as well as many works of nonfiction), a theme is the main idea of the story, or the message the author is conveying. This message is usually about life, society or human nature.’

I would suggest that the theme of ‘making babies’ as I have called it is a minor theme within the books.

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:

Edit: And I am in no way saying you purposefully tried to "trick" us or anything...

I have most certainly not intended to do that, and apologise if that’s how it came across.

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:

I'm just stating what's wrong with your argument.

Or more accurately, with the manner I framed my argument.

quote:
Originally posted by Gosu:

By the way, do you spell it "argument" or "arguement"?

Argument.

Now that I’ve said all of that, however futile this may sound, I appreciate the discussion that has occurred here. Instead of my dissenting view simply being blasted, it has been discussed rationally by all concerned. I apologise for this personalised reply, but felt it was justified as a response to a personalised post. I hope we can continue this discussion in the amicable manner that has occurred thus far, as I find it interesting to see other views on this subject.

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :

"I apologise for this personalised reply"

Don't. If anything, it was still too impersonal.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

I think it's quite reasonable that Petra wants lots of babies. In my experience, it runs in families. Her mother had more children than the law actually allowed at the time the last was concieved. She also watched after all the neighborhood children. It's reasonable to think that the desire for children runs in the family.

My mom had four kids-- despite two divorces and a 8-year period between marriages. My grandmother on her side was always saddened by the fact that she underwent an emergency hysterectomy after two children, and was unable to have more. She was a teacher-- even though she was very qualified to be a seamstress and could have made more money doing it. My mother is a pediatric nurse. My father came from a family of 6 children. He would not have been opposed to more had he not been divorced. He is a family practitioner, but his favorite work has always been with kids.

My husband's mother has four children, despite being widowed and, again, unmarried for a period of 5 years. (I'm thinking barring these periods of unmarried-ness in my mother's and mother-in-law's lives, they might have ended up with more kids.)

Is it any surprise that we had a child as soon as we got married, and wish to have many more, and that I have worked in child care? I don't think so. And I think Petra could justifiably have the same drive to have children.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

I also come from a long line of people who wanted children. I do want kids, but it still isn't what I was thinking about when I was Petra's age. It's only sort of what I'm thinking about now, and I consider myself an intelligent, mostly-moral, good Mormon girl. Petra's choices were not inevitable.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

I'm not saying they were inevitable; just that they could be logical. And when I was 15 to 17, I was obssessed with babies. I think it manifests differently in different people; being deprived of a normal childhood may have an impact on Petra's desire, too.

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
Are you seriously claiming that modern medicine and hygiene are BAD things?

In terms of humanity playing a balanced roll in the planet's ecology? Yes. Medicine, (advanced) hygeine, international peace, these are all things that have helped human beings outgrow population limits, wreaking ecological havoc wherever they go. If we wanted to become a part of the natural order of things, we'd exist in a perpetual state of warfare with every other population of human beings, most concentrated populations of people would've been decimated by disease (e.g. plague, small pox, AIDS) - but we'd also be evolving again.

quote:
Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
Is it any surprise that we had a child as soon as we got married, and wish to have many more, and that I have worked in child care? I don't think so. And I think Petra could justifiably have the same drive to have children.

I agree, which makes it even sadder that she loves warfare and victory just as much as her children and husband.

[ July 19, 2005, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

Um, Katie's not married, that was me. [Wink]

Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :

Oops! Edited.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

I don't know. I realize I may be being too cautious, but it all (having tons of kids) seems like all but ASKING for problems down the road.

What about the one-child-per-family thing in China? They were forced to implement that because Mao Tse-Tung had encouraged lots of baby-making in China in the 60s. They just didn't have enough food to feed everyone, nor did they have the weaponry to go to war.

All I know is, all the kids I know from growing up who ended up in the military are from large families, usually younger sons.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

Um, last I heard, Salt Lake didn't have a larger incidence of large families than any other American city. (You know it's only 40% LDS, right?) And I have always lived within the level 1 or 2 nuclear attack radius of cities in the top 5, population wise, and known plenty of large families. In fact, I grew up in the "foothills" north of LA, on the mountain with the missile silos. So I always knew if there was a nuclear attack and I was home, I was dead within 48 hours or so.

And I have never known anyone to go into the military because they were a younger son. In fact, most of the military people I know are eldest children.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

ketchupqueen--I edited my post. Check it. But nuclear attacks? but seriously, wher is Osama going to get an ICBM? On another note,let me tell you, if he uses the dirty bomb option, it won't be over Dallas, TX.

Growing up near a missile silo is pretty rare in rural areas. You're talking exceptions, not the rule.

And your last statement is completely the opposite of what I have experienced. Be that as it may, would you like to investigate the stats on how many military personnel come from larger families than the members of the general population? Let's be real here. We both know it's all about having too many kids, then shipping the sons off to war.

I do think it would be interesting to find out who Osama really hates--polygamist jack-Mormons, or New York liberals. I wouldn't know enough to guess. Do we have any experts on Islam?

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

quote:
We both know it's all about having too many kids, then shipping the sons off to war.

I don't know what country you're living in. Here in America, people are allowed to choose whether to go into the military or not. And your post still says that, I posted after you edited.

I didn't grow up in a rural area. That's what I'm telling you. I grew up in LA, 15 minutes from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 30 from a missile silo, and Osama isn't who we were worried about growing up.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

As for the people we know who are military, obviously neither of us has an objective sample. But I will tell you, most of the people I know went in as officers, and were choosing it as a career.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

My sample would include a balance of officers and enlisted. Oh, and did you forget about the 32 year military draft from 1941 to 1973? Yep, you did.

As for being worried about the Communists, well that turned out to be a big flop, didn't it? I wonder if the whole 9/11 thing will turn out similarly.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

quote:
My sample would include a balance of officers and enlisted. Oh, and did you forget about the 32 year military draft from 1941 to 1973? Yep, you did.

Um, no, I didn't. But I wasn't alive then, and most politicians have stated categorically that they will avoid another draft at almost all costs. So it's not really relevant to people I know, is it? [Roll Eyes]

quote:
As for being worried about the Communists, well that turned out to be a big flop, didn't it? I wonder if the whole 9/11 thing will turn out similarly.

Did I ever say I was afraid of communists? No. Growing up, I was more afraid that our government would start the war, and someone else would retaliate, actually. And you obviously don't know much about my politics. I don't know where you stand, but maybe you should stop treating me as hostile when I'm just trying to have a polite discussion here.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

Hey, I was worried about the Communists myself. I had no good reason to, but I didn't know that then. Except for Castro/Cuba and a few diehard holdouts in the former USSR, Communism is deader than dead. I see no reason to support or attack it. It would be like beating or trying to resurrect dead horse. Not that I think corporations are the new "big brother", either.

As for politicians avoiding the draft....believe what you want. "read my lips...no new taxes" , "I am not a crook", "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". You get my drift?

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

Yes, but a draft would be political suicide as long as there are people alive who remember the last one in any case barring a full-scale invasion of America proper, which is not going to happen any time soon. I think it's a lot more likely to be avoided than a tax hike.

Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :

I'd just like to take this opportunity to say that I enjoy "Making Babies."

That is all. [Big Grin]

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

Heck, so do I, Boon.

So, when are we going to run off and found the Hoochie-less Hoochie Stable? [Big Grin]

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

I don't know, tomato empress. I don't pretend to be able to predict the future to that degree. You go right ahead.

the problem is, there aren't enough American-born, English-speaking people to draft anyway. Who would get drafted? The boomers are too old now, and our generation is tiny comparatively.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

steven, that post was directed at Boon. [Razz]

Um. There are plenty of people to draft; I pray every once in a while it won't happen, because my husband is fit and all males still have to register when they turn 18.

Ack. Link isn't working. But anyway, the only study I found regarding birth order and employment doesn't specifically mention military service.

Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :

quote:
I do think it would be interesting to find out who Osama really hates--polygamist jack-Mormons, or New York liberals. I wouldn't know enough to guess. Do we have any experts on Islam?

I'm not an expert on Islam, but I do know enough to know that bin Ladin uses religion to justify hatred. You'd be much better off asking for an expert on bin Ladin.

It's like asking for an expert on mainstream Christianity to explain the nuances of hate-filled tracts about, say, LDS.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

'matermonarch--kindly summarize the results, and make sure you include the data on law enforcement personnel.

You really haven't done your population research--12 million people were born in the US in 1957. 3.1 million were born in 1973. The birth rate hasn't risen beyond 4.6 million since about 1970, and that was in about 1990. There really aren't that many to draft. Vietnam was all about trimming the excess population.

Liz, bin laden's beliefs must jibe with general fundamentalist Islamists to some degree. I'm asking, who would Osama go after if he had his druthers, the 5th-son-of-10 Utah-Mormon infantryman in Afghanistan, that same Mormon's West-Point-graduated Mormon Commanding Officer, or the liberal radical lesbian feminist who attacks the war in her weekly newspaper column and lives in Manhattan? Who does the guy really hate? The polygamists in Utah, or the liberals in NYC?

Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :

quote:
As for being worried about the Communists, well that turned out to be a big flop, didn't it?
.....
Hey, I was worried about the Communists myself. I had no good reason to, but I didn't know that then.

This type of thinking really bothers me.

The attitude is this:

What once was a problem is no longer a problem, so it never was a REAL problem.

Let me assure the naively uninformed:

Communism (especially in terms of the USSR) was a HUGE danger for the United States. If we had not taken it as seriously as we did, it could have defeated us. Just because it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't have.

China remains a serious threat to the United States, perhaps even larger than Osama ever was, precisely because we are NOT currently viewing China as a serious threat.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

China? I hope you're joking. here are 3 scenarios--

1. They nuke us. Not likely. We have 10 times the nukes they do, and can strike back from nuclear subs as well as missile silos.

2. a conventional tanks-and-planes takeover. Again, not likely. This didn't work for the Japanese, either, and they took us by surprise.

3. They cripple us economically. Well, big whup. Get used to it, there isn't much you can do about that.

And Sweet William, according to what I've read, the USSR was completely bankrupt by the late 1960's, and had no ability to stage a major military campaign. As far as nuking us goes, what would that have proven? They didn't have the resources to follow up a tactical nuclear strike with a conventional takeover force.

Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :

quote:
Roseauthor--it sounds like you are saying humans are fated to make too many kids, then fight wars to reduce the excess population, forever and ever, til the sun goes out. Is that correct?

I found it! I found where the thread got off track! I win, right guys?
.....Guys?

Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :

*gives JT a cookie*

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :

quote:
Getting sick of "Making Babies"

Then I guess you're doing it wrong.

Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :

Wow. The logic in this thread. I have nothing.

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

Prostate Massage.

(NOW the thread is off track.) [Smile]

Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :

New page!

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

steven, you're making little enough sense that I'm not going to respond until you restate your questions clearly and succinctly. Sorry. [Dont Know]

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :

kqueen--my first point in your general direction was about law enforcement being somewhat like enlisted military employment. Is that not a separate category in the study you are citing?

My second point was that you really haven't done your population research. the 1970's were a population bust in the US. There hasn't been a real boom since then. There really aren't many people to draft. You'd have to draft some people with college degrees, kids, and full-time jobs to get much of a force. Vietnam only happened as a campaign because of the gigantic Baby Boom in the US in the 1940s and 1950s.

Prostate Massage. (OK, now I'm just being silly)

Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :

Steven, that seems like a bit of a strange "post hoc, propter hoc" argument to me.

Vietnam draft came after Baby Boom, so thus the Boom was responsible for the draft.

Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :

For one thing, they wouldn't be able to get away with a male only draft this time. That's probably one of the reasons they're so hesitant to restart it without a really good reason.

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :

There was a draft during the Civil War, as well as during both World Wars. Does your population boom theory work there, too?

And I only had the abstract, which said mostly that birth order did not seem to have much effect on employment in males or females. In males, family size didn't have much impact. In females, women from large families were more likely to work early in life (16-21) and less likely later on (22-27). Women from small families, the reverse.

[ July 19, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]