I mean, even if they literally contain sex, it's totally unromantic.
I was just thinking to myself, It's interesting how the vast majority of stories contain some kind of romance. Are there any books or movies I can think of that are totally devoid of it? Oh, I know -- Ender's Game!
I guess maybe a lot of science fiction is. It's interesting. I guess I never realized this before, because I read most of my science fiction in middle school, when I wasn't exactly on the lookout for sex and romance.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Homecoming, Alvin Maker, Shadow Puppets, and Homebody do.
That's half the books I've read.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You're kind of right. For the most part, OSC fails at writing romance. Except in maybe Lost Boy sand it's a dutiful kind of we're married romance and then you have Alvin and Margaret. They are the best couple in an OSC book I think, but then there's Miro and Jane, but mostly it's all about reproduction, which isn't really all that sexy. I'd say all that sexy schechy romance stuff is like flavour in food. And most of his stuff is like the tasteless mush in that Octavia Butler book.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I feel Enchantment is a good romance. It's one of my favourite books by OSC.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Are there any books or movies I can think of that are totally devoid of it? Oh, I know -- Ender's Game!
Ender's Game is about little kids. Careful what you wish for.
But I'm not really missing your point. The whole Enderverse seems pretty celibate. Several couples make a point of discussing their reasons for celibacy, even.
But sex happens, it's just not narrated. It remains kind of private, in a way.
There's no denying that OSC emphasizes the point of view that sexual urges should be carefully contained and directed in a socially beneficial way, and a lot of the most important characters tend to have pointed discussions about this very thing. The Libo/Novinha thing at least acknowledges that not everyone ends up following the rules.
On the other hand, I can't really see much reason to spend time in the bedroom with any of the characters in his stories; it might be titillating but I don't think it'd add substance.
I don't much regret the lack of romance. Isn't the scene with Olhado and his wife pretty romantic? It was at least a rather touching portrayal of a committed, loving couple.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That was sort of romantic. But I think some of his other couple stories tend to make me cringe. Especially Ender and that chick in EiE and to an extent, Bean and Petra doesn't seem believable to me, Ender and Novinau (sp) has bothered me for years. Not to mention that chick and that alien. It bugs me that that's probably one of his sexiest sex scenes.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I was forgetting about Novinha/Libo and Miro/Ouanda in Speaker. There is physical description about why Novinha loves Libo, and sexual banter between the second pair.
But the fact that Ender is totally celibate for no good reason (and it actually says that specifically, during his meeting with the CotM in Speaker) makes the book FEEL totally sexless. Ender and Novinha's marriage was just...convenient? Or something. Ender loved her so much supposedly because he had understood her so well. While I totally understand the whole love/understanding thing, I don't see that as leading to a romantic relationship. Different kind of love there.
I'm not complaining, or even criticizing -- OSC's books are what they are and clearly I love and enjoy them anyway -- it's just that his view of sex and romantic love seems repeatedly a bit off-tune with my personal view of it, and as well as the view of several of my other favorite authors. The "romance" seems to follow logical, convenient (productive) lines rather than the senseless, illogical premises typical to most real romances.
Posted by Lourinha (Member # 12079) on :
i agree with Aris Katsaris Enchantment is one of my favourite romances.
i don't think there's a need to sexualise the books. i think that the relationships that are between the non romantically related people are the best written.
although i love Valentine/Jakt's relationship
also the age gap between Bean and petra confuses me. wasn't she like 6 years older than him?
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Tara, OSC is LDS. We consider love and sexuality to be literally sacred things, gifts from a loving Heavenly Father. Thus, it's not talked about much outside of those we have such intimate relationships. It differs from author to author. Dave Wolverton/Farland, for instance, tends to be rather frank and upfront about it.
But I maintain you'd be making a huge mistake judging OSC's views on intimate love by how much sexual content there are in his stories. Considering such things sacred does not mean we hate them. Quite the opposite.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Oh, I also forgot Val and Jakt. It's a nicely written and sweet, but again, not really the center of anything, you know? (Not that it has to be.)
I'll have to check out Enchantment. I have a hard time imagining what a true OSC romance would be like.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Tara, OSC is LDS. We consider love and sexuality to be literally sacred things, gifts from a loving Heavenly Father. Thus, it's not talked about much outside of those we have such intimate relationships. It differs from author to author. Dave Wolverton/Farland, for instance, tends to be rather frank and upfront about it.
But I maintain you'd be making a huge mistake judging OSC's views on intimate love by how much sexual content there are in his novel. Considering such things sacred does not mean we hate them. Quite the opposite.
Wow. "Hate"? Where did that word choice come from? I was implying absolutely no such thing.
But I totally get your point about keeping it private and implied. That is consistent to many other things I have read about LDS beliefs and OSC's beliefs.
Please keep in mind that I am not criticizing OSC, nor accusing him of anything. It seems like at Hatrack we tend to infer definite statements and accusations out of anything. I'm simply discussing a general trend that has interested me.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Homecoming, Alvin Maker, Shadow Puppets, and Homebody do.
That's half the books I've read.
I haven't read Homecoming or Homebody, but neither Alvin Maker nor Shadow Puppets seemed particularly romantic to me. Just because a relationship exists between two characters does not automatically make it romantic.
In most books, when authors choose two characters to fall in love, they make an effort to show how their personalities line up, how they're emotionally attracted to each other. I don't see evidence of this between Alvin and Peggy or between Bean and Petra. Perhaps OSC was deliberately NOT explaining why they were attracted to each other, leaving the reader to simply assume the attraction exists. That's legit. It's just a unique approach. Obviously I'm making a general statement here without finding specific evidence, so if anybody has some to support the claim or refute it, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Homecoming, Alvin Maker, Shadow Puppets, and Homebody do.
That's half the books I've read.
I haven't read Homecoming or Homebody, but neither Alvin Maker nor Shadow Puppets seemed particularly romantic to me. Just because a relationship exists between two characters does not automatically make it romantic.
In most books, when authors choose two characters to fall in love, they make an effort to show how their personalities line up, how they're emotionally attracted to each other. I don't see evidence of this between Alvin and Peggy or between Bean and Petra. Perhaps OSC was deliberately NOT explaining why they were attracted to each other, leaving the reader to simply assume the attraction exists. That's legit. It's just a unique approach. Obviously I'm making a general statement here without finding specific evidence, so if anybody has some to support the claim or refute it, I'd like to hear it.
Yeah, that tends to bug me, for example, Ender and Novinhua, their relationship, well, kind of sucks and it's not very believable. They only had about one conversation before next thing you know they were married. She was so mean to Ender without a good reason for it, being cold towards him when it wasn't his fault her son died. He was working so hard with the marriage, joining her in a Nunnery/Monkery trying to fix things, when what did she do for him? She cut him off from his best and oldest friend because she was jealous and insecure. Man, she frustrated me. OSC's romances tend to be a bit forced to me. It's like a kid taking two dolls, GI Joe and Barbie and forcing them to kiss sometimes. Like what bugged me about Enchantment was that very thing. Or maybe the whole man and woman arguing a lot thing and then they get together. It was done a bit better in Stardust which is similar to that book. I don't know. perhaps I sound harsh.
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
hmmm... I always thought Lanik and Saranna (Treason) being as slow as statues was one of the most romantic "scenes" I have ever read.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, Syn, a bit harsh.
I know we've talked about it before, so you probably just don't find this believable, but Ender is supposed to be drawn to Novinha because of her unusual amount of bitterness. He empathizes with her self hatred and loneliness and wants to fix it; it draws him in because he recognizes that NO ONE else can do it. And there's a lot to admire and love about Novinha, if you can forgive the bitterness and refusal to be happy. (I certainly would not want to be in that situation.)
OSC did skip over whatever courtship is supposed to have happened, but it was not as if he literally had them get married after one conversation, he just skipped over whatever happened in between.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I reckon so. But I'd hate to marry someone who is bitter and hates themselves, but they did have that in common at least. But still, I don't think you can fix a person if they are bitter and unhappy unless they decide they don't want to be that way anymore and they want to be happy over the slightest little thing.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Novinha was headed in that direction, don't you think? Allowing herself to marry Ender was a good start, considering she had considered herself undeserving of any kind of loving relationship before.
And I don't think Ender would ever offended by Novinha being "mean" to him, considering how well he understands her.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tara: I bet Enchantment will change your mind about OSC and romances.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara:
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Homecoming, Alvin Maker, Shadow Puppets, and Homebody do.
That's half the books I've read.
I haven't read Homecoming or Homebody, but neither Alvin Maker nor Shadow Puppets seemed particularly romantic to me. Just because a relationship exists between two characters does not automatically make it romantic.
I agree, but I wouldnt call them (relatively) devoid of romance either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Not to mention that chick and that alien. It bugs me that that's probably one of his sexiest sex scenes.
*Blinks* Wait, what? I think I missed something here. Which of OSC's female characters has sex with an alien?
Ender's celibacy before he marries Novinha struck me as totally unrealistic. What, in fifteen years he never met anyone he wanted to have sex with? Likewise for the guy in 'Treasure Box', where OSC at least attempted to explain it in the internal monologue; it felt very forced.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Honestly, I find most OSC books to be far more romantic than the books I've read that conflate sexuality with romance.
Besides the scenes in the Ender series everyone has commented on, there is also Enchantment, obviously, plus stuff like Lost Boys, Homebody, Treasure Box, Saints, the Women of Israel books, Folk of the Fringe, and numerous short stories that all have wonderful moments of romance. I found the Homecoming series - Ships of Earth in particular -- to be profoundly romantic. The Tree of Life dream, the sacrifices the spouses make for each other, Issib & Hushidh's wedding, the moment when Luet & Nafai admit their love, etc.
Then again, I'm left nonplussed by a lot of the supposedly "romantic" things in our current culture, so maybe "romance" is the wrong word for what I'm appreciating here. I think maybe I find descriptions of commitment and empathy in relationships that are in context with the rest of life to be far more sexy than anything else. Card doesn't graphically describe every last bodily function related to reproduction, no, but the relationships between his characters, the love and struggles they go through to understand each other, the inadvertent harm they do in their miscommunication and the ways they try to fix what they've done is so much more important.
Just for the record, oftentimes the things folks such as Synesthesia & KoM have labeled as "unrealistic" have been some of the best parts of the books for me, because they lined up so well with my own experience. Ender & Alessandra's relationship during & after the play was probably my favorite part of Ender in Exile. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Which of OSC's female characters has sex with an alien?
The protagonist of Wyrms. She has sex with a giant maggot that has literally taken control of her through super pheremones.
Posted by Craig Childs (Member # 5382) on :
Lovelock, Hot Sleep, Songmaster, and Rachel and Leah all have their fair share of sex and romance.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mph, it's not a maggot. It has limbs.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I rest my case.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Which of OSC's female characters has sex with an alien?
The protagonist of Wyrms. She has sex with a giant maggot that has literally taken control of her through super pheremones.
ew ew ew You said the M word! YUCK! *itches*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: mph, it's not a maggot. It has limbs.
It's a half human, half alien maggot hybrid.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm with you on every word but "maggot".
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
The book definitely painted a very maggoty picture in my mind.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you have a better word? The creature seemed much more maggoty than, say, worm-like.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
There's a couple of sex scenes in Hart's Hope that are pretty romantic, huh?
Posted by Rainfox (Member # 12081) on :
It seems to me that there is just enough sex and romance in the Alvin series to keep things going. In all fairness, most of OSC's books that I've read have not been about sex and romance, and it would've probably gotten in the way more than anything.
As a matter of fact, both the series I've (re-)read recently (Alvin and Ender/Shadow series) have mainly alluded to sex, attraction and romance in such a way that you know it's there, but it doesn't get in the way of what the story's actually about. Personally I prefer it this way, rather than go through stereotypical love scenes etcetera.
A few specific points: There's a not-so-subtle reference to Bean and Petra having sex during/after their honeymoon. The whole honeymoon and sex sequence neatly tucked into a single paragraph, merely a small part of a bigger story.
Alessandra throwing herself at Ender in Ender in Exile, practically putting on a strip tease towards the end of their voyage. But still it's only a small part in the story, and that's just fine by me.
Peggy and Alvin's romance (or lack thereof) actually spanned quite a while, and seemed to come off quite reasonable without turning the place into a romance novel.
Personally I think that if you wanted to read about sex and romance, your library's sci-fi aisle is not necessarily the place to find it.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Alvin maker spoilers...recalled to the best of my ability.
------ "Alvin, can/have you cause a woman to have overwhelming lust"
"Never tried it before. Want me to?"
"Not while you're not here, you torturer!" ------
She was refering to Calvin in that scene and how he basically raped a woman.
[ June 05, 2009, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Rainfox (Member # 12081) on :
Nods, I remember that from when Calvin was in Camelot. It was quite detailed as a matter of fact.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
OSC is a very cerebral writer and his characters reflect this. There's not a lot of emotionally resonating passion in any of his books and yeah, his relationships are sort of dry toast and butter. Mostly the romance happens off screen or is on the level of either naive teenagers or of participants of a college debate.
One of the paradoxes I've always found with OSC's work is how he is very good at characterization but his characters and settings are generally completely unrealistic. He's good at creating characters that feel complete and somehow real without actually acting or talking like real people.
Posted by Lourinha (Member # 12079) on :
quote The protagonist of Wyrms. She has sex with a giant maggot that has literally taken control of her through super pheremones.
congratulations, you've just persuaded me to read wyrms
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
*Raises eyebrows* Giant maggots? Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Do you have a better word? The creature seemed much more maggoty than, say, worm-like.
Larva.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Has anyone here read Hart's Hope? Or the short stories collected in Maps in a Mirror? Saints?
If not, I would recommend them. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yes, yes, and no.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Do you have a better word? The creature seemed much more maggoty than, say, worm-like.
Larva.
I've got to admit that that's a more accurate word. It does not, however communicate what I was wanting to express nearly as well.
BTW, when we opened our bee hives the other day, it was fascinating to see that the hone bee larvae are pretty much indistinguishable from maggots. Except, of course, that they're inside honeycomb instead of rotting meat.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lourinha: congratulations, you've just persuaded me to read wyrms
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Do you have a better word? The creature seemed much more maggoty than, say, worm-like.
Larva.
I've got to admit that that's a more accurate word. It does not, however communicate what I was wanting to express nearly as well.
BTW, when we opened our bee hives the other day, it was fascinating to see that the hone bee larvae are pretty much indistinguishable from maggots. Except, of course, that they're inside honeycomb instead of rotting meat.
And bee larvae, like maggots, are limbless. The Unwyrm was not.
Posted by Maratanos (Member # 11918) on :
I should like to point out that on average, Orson Scott Card's books are considerably more romantic than most books packed full of sex. Certainly some of the relationships are rather off-screen, and there are some scenes in Children of the Mind that are annoyingly cheesy, but that doesn't really make that much of a difference overall.
The problem is that people have a tendency to think that sex is romantic. It's not, really. It's sexual. Unless we want to make the word "romance" practically meaningless and completely missing the point, it MUST be understood that the basis of successful romance has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It's about shared experience and sympathy and doing what is necessary even when everything has gone to hell.
Viewed from that perspective, Orson Scott Card's work has a tendency to be considerably more romantic than most romance novels I've seen.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lourinha:
also the age gap between Bean and petra confuses me. wasn't she like 6 years older than him?
I think there relationship had to do more about them being the closest given their pasts and intelligence andd personality. I do not think age matters that much in most relationships, and anything with bean is already going to be a strange relationship.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
It's important to keep in mind that Bean isn't exactly human so his age isn't the best indicator of his maturity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: Unless we want to make the word "romance" practically meaningless and completely missing the point, it MUST be understood that the basis of successful romance has absolutely nothing to do with sex.
I know. Real romance is about a rational consideration of shared interests and compatibility and should not be polluted with emotions or passion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
"Emotion" and "passion" are elements of romance. They aren't necessarily components of sex.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ahh...but they are components of romantic sex, or rather sex in a romantic relationship.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:but mostly it's all about reproduction, which isn't really all that sexy.
Depends on your point of view.
Let's just say that at our house, reproduction is very romantic and "sexy" and leave it at that. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ahh...but they [emotion and passion] are components of romantic sex, or rather sex in a romantic relationship.
Not exclusively-- unless by sex, you mean "attraction" rather than coitus.
Passion and emotion-- physical/mental attraction-- can be felt by completely chaste individuals.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:Originally posted by Maratanos: The problem is that people have a tendency to think that sex is romantic. It's not, really. It's sexual. Unless we want to make the word "romance" practically meaningless and completely missing the point, it MUST be understood that the basis of successful romance has absolutely nothing to do with sex. It's about shared experience and sympathy and doing what is necessary even when everything has gone to hell.
Viewed from that perspective, Orson Scott Card's work has a tendency to be considerably more romantic than most romance novels I've seen.
You're making the word "romance" sound much more profound and meaningful than I ever thought it was.
I've always thought there were three components involved when you're in love with somebody: romantic, sexual, and emotional. Sexual: Sex. Romance: All the typical romantic things new couples do for each other, (cliched or otherwise) love notes, candle-lit dinners, walks on the beach, holding hands, etc, etc, etc. Emotional: Real, deep, meaningful bonds of love than come with mutual understanding, respect, and esteem.
A relationship can have three, two, or maybe only one of those elements. What you're describing is, in my opinion, NOT romance but emotional love -- which CERTAINLY exists is OSC's books. What I'm saying OSC's books lack (most of the time, as far as I have seen) is the other two, more trivial, elements of love.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Do the vast majority of stories really emphasize that stuff? Especially if you count comic books?
What I think of romance is showing any way how two people get along with another and enjoy the other persons company, not only on dates, but just in general.
In Homecoming when Nafai hugs Luet (in a playful context that I wont spoil), and Luet tickles Nafai off and they both laugh, that's romance. Maybe it's just the kind of stuff I read and that the "classical" denotation feels relatively irrelevant to me--and I get how that gets viewed as its definition--but that's heartwarming enough to satisfy what I want out of reading about a relationship.
[ June 10, 2009, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: umberhulk ]
Posted by Maratanos (Member # 11918) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: You're making the word "romance" sound much more profound and meaningful than I ever thought it was.
I've always thought there were three components involved when you're in love with somebody: romantic, sexual, and emotional. Sexual: Sex. Romance: All the typical romantic things new couples do for each other, (cliched or otherwise) love notes, candle-lit dinners, walks on the beach, holding hands, etc, etc, etc. Emotional: Real, deep, meaningful bonds of love than come with mutual understanding, respect, and esteem.
A relationship can have three, two, or maybe only one of those elements. What you're describing is, in my opinion, NOT romance but emotional love -- which CERTAINLY exists is OSC's books. What I'm saying OSC's books lack (most of the time, as far as I have seen) is the other two, more trivial, elements of love.
And that's a bad thing? You could write an encyclopedia on the lives ruined by people thinking that what you just described as sexual and romantic actually matter in and of themselves.
They don't. Sex in a relationship serves the purpose of enhancing an emotional bond. While sex in a healthy relationship can help keep the relationship healthy, sex in a relationship built on bad roots and poor choice of partner generally will lead only to nasty, awkward breakups.
And as for what you just described as romance, it's actually a concept pretty much unique to our society, and as far as I can tell it does nothing but harm.
No, if you want to describe romance in a positive light, you have no choice but to go with what you would classify as "emotional".
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
No... I never said it was a bad thing. I am simply pointing out a phenominon in OSC's books that I have not seen discussed here much. I am not offering an opinion of whether it is good or bad, and I don't think OSC should change his writing style nor do I ever expect him to.
My only comment, basically, was on the dryness between aspiring romantic/sexual couples in OSC's novels. People have pointed out many exceptions and I have added some (more) OSC novels to my long summer reading list. Posted by Iarn Greiper (Member # 10731) on :
That scene between the protagonist of Wyrms and Unwyrm was pretty romantic... >_>
Enchantment had some romance type stuff. Actually that was sorta the whole point of the book...
Also the Women of Genesis series, at least the first two, dealt a lot with the relationship between the matriarchs and patriarchs.
I'm not commenting on the depth of romance here, just saying that it was there in those books. So his writing isn't "devoid of sex and romance"
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
There is plenty of romance, it's just that OSC's writing style, which is kind of terse, would make a sex scene very awkward. Besides, it wouldn't add to any of this novels' plots at all--it just wouldn't make sense to have explicit sex scenes or even detailed descriptions of kisses, making out, whatever. His portrayals of emotional connections between characters is very good.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
his, not this novels
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There's an edit button. It's the little pencil-on-paper icon.
Posted by lolcats (Member # 12060) on :
Thank you, I didn't know about that button.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I just finished reading Enchantment and while it was the most romantic book OSC wrote, IMO, the romance was rather tame and lacked passion. I would call it sweet rather than romantic.
I was expecting a more profound moment to bring them together. Instead, they just kind of waited one another out. Now, I did enjoy the book very much, as I enjoy many of his books, but OSC is not my source for romance.
His LDS leanings come through very heavily in his romantic scenes, his views on sex, marriage, women, and children. This may play very well with some people, but with me there's a slight disconnect. Most notably, I don't necessarily think the goal of sex is to produce children. (There was some commentary in Enchantment about modern women using birth control to keep themselves barren.)
Posted by anberlinrulez (Member # 12129) on :
I can't think of a book that is "packed with sex" could anybody help me out as to the title of one? I'm reading my first book by OSC right now. It's Empire. It's ironic because i'm a sci-fi fan but i'm reading a non-sci fi book of his.
-anberlinrulez
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by anberlinrulez: I can't think of a book that is "packed with sex" could anybody help me out as to the title of one? I'm reading my first book by OSC right now. It's Empire. It's ironic because i'm a sci-fi fan but i'm reading a non-sci fi book of his.
-anberlinrulez
I don't think Empire is the best introduction to Card's work. It was his first attempt to write a political thriller. Most of his work deals with science fiction or fantasy, and there are some very solid efforts in both of those genres. I was entertained by Empire, but I really think if you want to read to Card's strengths, you should stick to his classics. In his case, his most popular work, really is his best.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just finished reading Enchantment and while it was the most romantic book OSC wrote, IMO, the romance was rather tame and lacked passion. I would call it sweet rather than romantic.
We're at an impasse with our definitions here, I think. You seem to consider passion romantic and sweetness not to be. For me it's the opposite -- sweetness is romantic, while passion is just about sexual hormones instead.
Posted by hobsen (Member # 11808) on :
In answer to the question posed by anberlinrulez, I generally get my books from the public library, which will not buy the real junk which gets published. One title I picked off the fantasy shelf was The Accidental Werewolf by Dakota Cassidy. Nobody seems to know whether that should be shelved as fantasy or the broadest comedy or romance. But it was outrageously funny to me, and had way too much sex. The author also offers a thinly veiled portrayal of Mary Kay Cosmetics, which pleasantly reminded me of a friend who was a top saleswoman for that company. The following review is good, although it has lots of spoilers. But I am not sure that matters too much for a book I see as slapstick comedy, as the plot does not need to make sense.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Passion and emotion-- physical/mental attraction-- can be felt by completely chaste individuals.
Like those two in Pastwatch, whose names escape me at the moment.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: For me it's the opposite -- sweetness is romantic, while passion is just about sexual hormones instead.
Same for me, also. One of the most romantic gestures I've been on the receiving end of was not having flowers delivered to my door or being taken out for a candlelit dinner, it was having my significant other think to bring me groceries without any prompting. That was definitely sweet, and I found it very romantic. There are many other similar examples like that to pull from as well as ones that are bit more deep in nature, in the Trust sense. Both standing alone and all together, those paint a picture of romance that is far more than anything merely physical in nature could ever be.
Also, instead of repeating everything you've already said, Maratanos, I'll just say I take your view of things as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For me it's the opposite -- sweetness is romantic, while passion is just about sexual hormones instead.
This is going to be a rude question: have you had sex?
Because romance without passion is not romance. It's chess.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have three kids, Tom. And I rather emphatically disagree with you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You think you can have romance without passion? How are you distinguishing it from friendship at that point?
(I'm assuming that the distinction between romance and friendship is being made, obviously.)
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
A lot of friendships dont have sweetness either, Tom. My best friend and I insult eachotehr all the time; one of the reasons were best friends is because neither of us care.
Not that I'm taking a side here.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Many of the romantic scenes in OSC's novels seem to be relying on the reader's ability to draw on their own experiences to fill in the blanks, as it were. He sets up the frame work, then lets the reader's mind provide the actual details. OSC has said before that he believes that the author and the reader create the story together, because the reader will always bring his or her own emotions and baggage to the story or put a spin on it. (This wasn't his actual quote; that was my interpretation.) Whether or not that's fair is up to each individual; there's probably a fine line between letting the reader fill in the blanks and being so vague that you're no longer telling a story. But I appreciate his style, and have always found his scenes of romance, however short, to be very romantic. Maybe I've just had better experiences than you lot.
ETA: One of my favorite examples is in Ships of Earth, when Luet is feeling jealous over Eiadh's attention to Nafai. The book says that he knew that Luet needed reassurance that Eiadh's affection wasn't reciprocated, so he reassured her thoroughly, and then they slept. (Something like that.) My brain went a million miles an hour at that passage, and it has stuck with me all these years. I loved that Nafai knew her well enough to understand that her teasing was a mask for actual insecurity. And as far as filling in the blanks that "reassuring her thoroughly" left, my mind did that quite well, and I "imagined" that it was incredibly sexy. One sentence was all he needed to make that impact, but only because I automatically provided the details, never thinking about it until this day.
[ July 21, 2009, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jamio (Member # 12053) on :
Elizabeth Peters does the same thing in her Amelia Peabody mysteries. In fact, I think she uses the technique in all her books, but it's most obvious in Amelia Peabody.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Good example of a scene, PSI.
You illustrated your point thoroughly.
(I don't think this technique is working for me.)
((That's what she said!))
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: I just finished reading Enchantment and while it was the most romantic book OSC wrote, IMO, the romance was rather tame and lacked passion. I would call it sweet rather than romantic.
We're at an impasse with our definitions here, I think. You seem to consider passion romantic and sweetness not to be. For me it's the opposite -- sweetness is romantic, while passion is just about sexual hormones instead.
Passion is not about sex, it's about strong emotions. Technically, one can be passionate about cooking or art or literature. In the romantic sense, one is passionate about another human being. This often leads to sex, but not always. I have opinions about when explicit sex is appropriate in literature and it has a lot to do with how the emotions are laid out.
Sweetness can be romantic, and it can go hand in hand with passion. It's best when it does because then you know there's something underneath when the initial passion fades.
But when I'm reading the story about a man saving a princess and helping to rescue her kingdom, I'm kind of expecting passion. They came across as friends.
[ July 22, 2009, 06:48 AM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: You illustrated your point thoroughly.
I'll illustrate yo--ehh, nevermind.
Posted by insideout (Member # 12144) on :
-given-
OSC prefers to keep the moral center of his characters/ stories in line with his own moral understanding of society as a whole.
-therefore-
Likely it would be noticed, because of the brutal honesty present in his central characters, that he would find stepping outside of that center to be distasteful even if the characters in question were supposedly promiscuous or unconscientious, it could detract from the comfortable honesty with which his characters assess romantic interest in the opposite sex.
The way in which the characters express themselves needs no further qualification when it is expected that they prefer to see things as they truly are in their unique roles as members of a community which, as a whole, doesn't notice the detrimental effects of straying outside the boundaries of pragmatic and honest assessment of both one's own needs and desires before choosing to enter into a relationship, and the prospective partner's ability to fulfill the expectations that would be imposed upon them in such a relationship.
I find the candor of the main characters to be refreshing in this regard. That the majority of the main characters in the "Enderverse" are possessed of both great intelligence and pragmatic self control is undoubtedly part of the authors vision of the universe as it could be if this type of strong and yet predominantly unselfish personality could be valued as a cultural ideal.
Let's not forget, the entire concept of a post formic wars galaxy gives its author much freedom to subtly weave his own view of the effect of human relationships into the fabric of (a fictional) society as a whole and to bring to fruition, to greater or lesser degrees, as many of his own ideals as is practical in his own vision as such.
OSC's approach is one of the main reasons I continue to not only read, but delight in such a vision of an honorable/ selfless subset of humanity becoming influential and effecting a greater sense of responsibility in those around them and, by association, in myself, the reader, as well.
Pragmatic,honorable self-control as a desirable quality in productive members of society is big part of what attracts me to OSC's work.
What happens in the inner workings of relationships in this context doesn't need to be explicitly exposed. An implied understanding of these things is really all that's necessary to keep the story authentic. I applaud this author for not using explicit sexual encounters and the popular view of giving in to selfish desires as a means to attract a greater audience. I believe this makes his stories more relevant because of their value as an example of people's willingness to adopt greater virtue when it is shown to be beneficial.
Thanks and well done, Mr. Card. Do not waver in you convictions.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:What happens in the inner workings of relationships in this context doesn't need to be explicitly exposed. An implied understanding of these things is really all that's necessary to keep the story authentic.
One might easily argue the opposite point of view: The central romantic relationships of "virtuous" characters have a much bigger impact on their lives than the many casual ones of promiscuous characters have on theirs. Thus, a story dominated by the first type should focus more, not less, on the inner workings of these relationships.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by insideout: -given-
OSC prefers to keep the moral center of his characters/ stories in line with his own moral understanding of society as a whole.
-therefore-
...
OSC's approach is one of the main reasons I continue to not only read, but delight in such a vision of an honorable/ selfless subset of humanity becoming influential and effecting a greater sense of responsibility in those around them and, by association, in myself, the reader, as well.
The fact that Card's characters are an honest reflection of himself make them both believable and likable, and this is a large part of the reason I keep coming back to them. They are, in a sense, a fascinating and honest look into another person. (Not necessarily the author.)
But I can't honestly say that I find any inherent delight in the morality of the characters nor do I in all ways agree with the morality that is put forth. In particular, I have to disagree with the idea that the purpose of life is to get married and have babies, which is an idea that seems to be presented in many of his books. This is probably the biggest disconnect I have when it comes to romance in his books.
I also don't necessarily agree that stepping outside of this narrow view of love/marriage/romance is a selfish thing. There are plenty of ways to handle love and romance that are selfish, but there are also a number of honest and honorable ways to handle it that don't necessarily involve the strict code that I perceive in his books -- sex only within the bonds of marriage and only for procreation.
quote:Originally posted by insideout: What happens in the inner workings of relationships in this context doesn't need to be explicitly exposed. An implied understanding of these things is really all that's necessary to keep the story authentic.
I agree with this. Actually, given the picture Card is presenting it would seem odd if his sexual encounters were explicitly described. It would be out of character, where that character is actually the narrative voice.
But I don't think it is wrong to have explicit sex described and in fact, I would prefer to see in certain types of honest, romantic relationships. I find explicit sex a bit disgusting or disturbing when it involves characters that barely know one another, who are being dishonest with one another, or who are promiscuous. In the honest, romantic relationship where the sexual encounter is the climax (no pun intended) of the romantic plot/subplot, however; I have sometimes felt shut out at just the moment when I wanted to truly be a part of the character's delight in and enjoyment of one another. As I said, Card doesn't need to do this. It would be out of character. My best example of an author who has inappropriately shut me out is Mercedes Lackey, who has far more liberal views of sex and sexuality but who, for some reason, skips the emotional/physical climax.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My best example of an author who has inappropriately shut me out is Mercedes Lackey, who has far more liberal views of sex and sexuality but who, for some reason, skips the emotional/physical climax.
There is always the possibility that a given writer is simply no good at writing erotica, is aware of this, and chooses to not embarass themselves/spare the audience. IIRC someone suggested that this might apply to Card, early in this thread. An example of an author who has this lack (naturally, this is a matter of taste to an extent) but isn't aware of it is Heinlein. I usually love his style, but when I see a sex scene approaching I'm almost tempted to skip it because it's more likely than not to make me cringe...
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Hey. Sex was different back then.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kassyopeia:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: My best example of an author who has inappropriately shut me out is Mercedes Lackey, who has far more liberal views of sex and sexuality but who, for some reason, skips the emotional/physical climax.
There is always the possibility that a given writer is simply no good at writing erotica, is aware of this, and chooses to not embarass themselves/spare the audience. IIRC someone suggested that this might apply to Card, early in this thread. An example of an author who has this lack (naturally, this is a matter of taste to an extent) but isn't aware of it is Heinlein. I usually love his style, but when I see a sex scene approaching I'm almost tempted to skip it because it's more likely than not to make me cringe...
Heinlein's problem isn't that he can't write erotica. The success of erotic writing is all in the setup and Mercedes Lackey has the setup all there -- she's just missing the execution. Heinlein just doesn't have a normal person's view of sex or seem to understand the emotions involved. Some of his characters barely come off as believably human due to the utter lack of emotional depth where romance is involved. I enjoy reading his work for other reasons, but the sex in his books is something I find...interesting (in an old Chinese curse sort of way).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You think you can have romance without passion? How are you distinguishing it from friendship at that point?
The direction in which it may be heading. A courtship certainly can be romantic before it becomes passionate.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You think you can have romance without passion? How are you distinguishing it from friendship at that point?
The direction in which it may be heading. A courtship certainly can be romantic before it becomes passionate.
Speak for yourself... Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You think you can have romance without passion? How are you distinguishing it from friendship at that point?
The direction in which it may be heading. A courtship certainly can be romantic before it becomes passionate.
We must not be defining our terms the same way because the way I see passion and the way I see romance, this makes no sense. I would agree that friendship can turn romantic. My husband and I were friends before he started courting me, but had there been no inkling of sexual desire there¸no strong feelings toward him, then I fail to see how his courtship would have been romantic in any way. Instead, it would have been...embarrassing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A courtship certainly can be romantic before it becomes passionate.
I don't see how. Saying, "I am not physically attracted to you but intend for this to end in marriage, so I am now courting you" doesn't work with my definition of "romantic."
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Heinlein's problem isn't that he can't write erotica. The success of erotic writing is all in the setup
Gotta disagree there. Heinlein does manage to produce romantic couplings (as in combinations) that I find believable and even touching on - maybe rare - occasions, but even then the coupling (in the other sense now) scene usually goes horribly awry. It's just not part of his skillset.
quote:the sex in his books is something I find...interesting (in an old Chinese curse sort of way)
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Hey. Sex was different back then.
Kidding aside, that may be a factor, but I don't think it's a major one. Frank Herbert's (similar creative period and genre) erotic material is top-notch, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would say that physical attraction is only one component of passion. Necessary but not sufficient, as Porter likes to say. Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I think it is obvious that the problem here essentially lies with what people expect from "sex and romance". Maybe that is why some people seem to feel OSC does not describe it at all, and others seem to feel his books are rather full of it.
I'm personally in the second camp. Then again, I am also one of those people who believes, sincerely, that sex is PRIMARILY for reproduction (and fun), and find reproduction itself incredibly sexy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Seriously? You find reproduction itself "sexy?"
*shudder* Dude, I've seen the moment of birth. Nothing's better for putting someone off sex for months, if you ask me.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Dude, I've seen the moment of birth. Nothing's better for putting someone off sex for months, if you ask me.
Yes, seeing it must be horrible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not even going to imagine how arousing actually participating in it must be.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Arousing is the wrong word. But it is unquestionably sensual.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um...I'd say it's an emotional experience, especially at the moment you feel the baby come into the world. There's a release that happens (and I even felt it with an epidural both times), but at that moment every emotion in my body was motherly. My husband was right there, but it had nothing to do with him. He could have been on the moon (although I appreciated the support).
It was the furthest thing in the world from sexy and as a matter of fact, a few minutes later I became quite aware of how disgusting and sticky I was.
There's a reason I didn't videotape the birth, which seems to be a popular thing to do. I told other mothers that I thought childbirth looked pretty gross and was only beautiful in the poetic sense. I got some real nasty looks over that, but I stand by it. If I had to watch the thing over again from a camera's POV, I don't think I'd feel quite the same.
But as far as reproduction being sexy, he could just mean a pregnant woman. My husband thought I was sexy when I was pregnant. Not all men feel that way.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: There's a reason I didn't videotape the birth, which seems to be a popular thing to do. I told other mothers that I thought childbirth looked pretty gross and was only beautiful in the poetic sense. I got some real nasty looks over that, but I stand by it. If I had to watch the thing over again from a camera's POV, I don't think I'd feel quite the same. [Smile]
Nurse: Maureen, do you want us to put a mirror up so you can see?
Me: Good God, what's wrong with you? Put that thing away! AWAY!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Me three.
Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
The article by OSC linked on that other thread has relevance in this one. This is a passage near the bottom from a synopsis of the question/answer portion of the speech. The link to the full transcript of the speech is here: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-talk.html (the bolded text is mine to make the format a little more clear.)
Q: Aren't there ways for a writer to sidestep the depiction of evil, and merely leave it up to the reader's imagination, instead of depicting it?
OSC: That depends upon the conventions of the audience. The writer must communicate. Eighty years ago, the audience knew perfectly well what the writer was leaving out when he said, "And upon what happens next we must draw the curtain." But today, the audience would reject such direct elision; and because they have become accustomed to graphic depictions of practically everything, they have a tendency to be unaware of subtlety-if it isn't shown, it didn't happen, so far as the reader is concerned.
This does not mean that a writer has to pander to the ignorance of his audience. It does mean, however, that a writer may have to depict more in order to communicate with most of his audience than some of his audience might think is necessary. In such matters a writer must be governed by his own sense of proportion and decorum. I have never written a scene in which I believed either sex or violence was provocative, though I have written scenes in which sex and violence take place. I have never included sex or violence at all unless they were strictly necessary in order to understand the character's subsequent actions. For instance, in Saints Dinah Kirkham is nearly raped in what I hope is a rather terrifying scene; in the first draft, I did not include that scene, but merely referred to it. However, readers of that draft made it very clear that because they had not actually experienced some of the terror of that scene, they were unable to understand Dinah's later actions in response to it. So I added the scene, still being very careful to make the scene frightening rather than arousing.
Of course, some readers will respond in the wrong way-it can't be helped. But I know my own intent, and I know that it works just the way I want it to with several intelligent readers. Beyond that, I can't be responsible for the individual responses of the readers, since I have no control over the frame of mind in which they approach the work. Certainly I don't advocate that writers of fiction depict evil willy-nilly; but then, a sense of proportion is required to write fiction at all, and the writer's handling of evil will be only one demonstration of the particular faculty.
Posted by Fractal Fraggle (Member # 9803) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Nurse: Maureen, do you want us to put a mirror up so you can see?
Me: Good God, what's wrong with you? Put that thing away! AWAY!
I had nearly the same conversation with a nurse when my son was born.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Steve_G: OSC: That depends upon the conventions of the audience. The writer must communicate. Eighty years ago, the audience knew perfectly well what the writer was leaving out when he said, "And upon what happens next we must draw the curtain." But today, the audience would reject such direct elision; and because they have become accustomed to graphic depictions of practically everything, they have a tendency to be unaware of subtlety-if it isn't shown, it didn't happen, so far as the reader is concerned. [/i]
This is an interesting way of putting it and I agree to a point. Modern story telling emphasizes showing rather than telling (though Card's own style skirts that line pretty closely at times) and in its competition with cinema, it also emphasizes a personal relationship with one or more characters. The thing is that once you take us to that level, once you create that frankly intimate connection with a character, "drawing the curtain" on certain acts seems odd and disconnected. It's not that it didn't happen and it's not that I can't imagine it.
But it does highlight part of when I feel that explicit sex is inappropriate -- when I don't have a strong link with a character. And of course, as feeling a link with a character is highly subjective, it is certain that there will always be disagreement, even by that standard. But for example, when a sex scene randomly pops up in an otherwise action-packed D&D-style fantasy book (which i try to avoid anyway), it usually seems wrong.
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:The thing is that once you take us to that level, once you create that frankly intimate connection with a character, "drawing the curtain" on certain acts seems odd and disconnected. It's not that it didn't happen and it's not that I can't imagine it.
I quite agree. The reader expects the narrator to apply certain filters to the lives of their characters. By far the most important of these is that things that have relevance to the plot, in the widest sense, should be included, while things that don't should be excluded. Mostly, a character's going to the toilet is quite irrelevant, so nobody will mind if those experiences are not mentioned, all considerations of propriety aside. However, this cannot be said for romantic encounters, obviously. Those are often among the key elements in character development. There may of course be a number of valid reasons to skip such a scene, but those should become clear later on in the narrative. If that doesn't happen, it leaves me with the impression that the writer is telling me "they had sex, but it didn't matter much". That may not be what they are aiming at, but it's the impression it creates.
In a way, I guess I'd prefer a flowery phrase like "drawing the curtain" to simply letting such a scene fade out, because by breaking the fourth wall and giving us the nudge-nudge-wink-wink, the aforementioned impression is, to an extent, avoided.
As to the other type of scene Card mentions, I really can't follow his reasoning. Most people have never directly experienced real, severe, deliberate violence. All they have to fuel their imaginations are fictional accounts. So, if those accounts in turn want the readers to fill in the details here for themselves, where are those supposed to come from? To give an example, most adventure stories involving stealth missions of some kind (warrior of tribe A sneaks into tribe B's camp, British commando infiltrates Nazi installation, whatever) have someone cutting someone else's throat. Until quite recently, my only referent for how I should imagine this sort of killing was the way it's portrayed in most movies - a trickle of blood, eyes bulging for a moment, then quick unconsciousness and/or death. I guess I should know enough anatomy to make me realize that this doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I never really questioned it anyway. Then, a few years ago, I watched one of those Al-Qaeda beheading vidoes. Yikes. Not tidy. Not quiet. Not quick. Human body just doesn't die easily. After having nightmares and bitterly regretting that decision for a few weeks, I took at least something worthwhile out of it - a different set of details to fill in fictional scenes of this kind with.
Card sort of makes it sound like the depiction of evil is evil in itself, and, vice versa, the avoidance of such depictions virtuous in itself. That is, of course, nonsense, or a half-truth at best. A realistically violent scene will horrify most people, thus impressing that violence is to be avoided. A scene that pretends violence is not a big deal, like those Hollywood-staple throat-slitting ones, can easily be used to portray violence as an acceptable means to fulfilling some personal quest. Need I say which one of these messages I think is the evil one?!
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
kassyopeia, have you read Card's earlier fiction, say, Treason or Maps in a Mirror? Card was blasted for years for showing too much sex and violence. And he has explicitly denied Plato's old idea that depicting evil is evil in and of itself, so you're not arguing against him...
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
quote:Card was blasted for years for showing too much sex and violence. And he has explicitly denied Plato's old idea that depicting evil is evil in and of itself, so you're not arguing against him...
Yes, I find most of Card's descriptions of violence to be rather explicit. The comment above was on the fact that in the interview we were discussing, he seems to be taking the stance that what needs justification is the explicitness of the description, not the inclusion of the violence pre se. That's where he's losing me.
Posted by oscfan (Member # 12170) on :
also the age gap between Bean and petra confuses me. wasn't she like 6 years older than him?
It confused me, too. When they got married, bean was like, what sixteen or younger? (At least that's what it said in Children of the Mind.) If they were a few years older it wouldn't have been a big deal but he was still a teenager while Petra was in her twenties, which is kind of weird despite Bean's intelligence and genetic condition.
Posted by oscfan (Member # 12170) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Mostly it's all about reproduction, which isn't really all that sexy.
I think that's true. In most of the books I've read, Orson Scott Card depicts sex as being about contributing to the survival of the human race, which is, I have to admit, pretty much the whole point when you think about it scientifically. But he also writes about lust and longing (especially from a man/boy's point of view), and as a teenage girl, that's enough sex for me. Posted by gruevy (Member # 12177) on :
So a question arises from this discussion. All of the graphic stuff people are mentioning, he wrote early in his career. I remember reading Ender's Game about 15 years ago, then voraciously reading everything else he had written. Some of the stuff is pretty shocking, like Wyrms and Hart's Hope, not to mention Songmaster. Saints, even. I was young, but there was quite a lot of screwing, with some scenes I still remember over a decade later. I can't think of anything that he wrote after that Lovelock nonsense (the climax of the book is a masturbating monkey? No wonder he dropped the series) that had the same oomph. Not in terms of violence, cruelty, sex, etc. Am I wrong, or did Card lose his edge somewhere?
Posted by kassyopeia (Member # 12110) on :
It's not unusual for people to grow more conservative as they get older. If, in Card's case, more conservative means taking his religion more seriously, that would certainly explain why his work got tamer.
What bothers me more, personally, is something related which has been observed by many on these boards: He increasingly builds stories around some overt moral message, rather than just tell the most interesting tale he can come up with (and he was and probably still is bloody good at coming up with interesting stuff) and leave the ethical interpretations up to the reader. IMO, irrespective of genre, the best stories are always those that follow the spirit of Twain's dictum:
quote: PERSONS attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I couldn't read Hart's Hope. I only just tried to read it this summer and it was just so completely not what I had come to expect from Card that I decided to put it down and retain my current opinion of his work.
Posted by gruevy (Member # 12177) on :
Hart's hope was a bit much, but in my opinion, his darkest was definitely Songmaster. Which is not to say that I don't like them. I do.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Hart's Hope was a totally different style than what we're used to seeing from OSC. However, it's not really that much darker than many of his short stories!
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)