posted
Having just finished Enders Game, I eagerly picked up a copy of Speaker for the Dead (2001 ed). Before I'd read four pages of OSC's introduction, it became clear to me that it consisted of pure waffle. He wrote a fine intro for Enders Game, it was informative, interesting and managed to convey the motivations that encouraged him to write EG. But with Speaker he drifted and procrastinated so much I feel he rather lost his way, especially when he began to give elements of the Speaker plot away! I stopped reading after four pages for fear that he’d let slip more info on the story. It's not a good idea for him to write his own introductions. But then again, I’ve only read two of his books. Do they get any worse? Posts: 56 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I find the Speaker introduction to be a wonderful story about how books are conceived, with a few very insightful comments on adolescence, and the changing personas that we develop.
Perhaps the problem is that most of Card's intros would function better as postludes; they only truely make sense when you already love the story that they are commenting on.
Which would explain why I, who have read Speaker at least ten times (and am actually taking a break from reading it again to post this), like the introduction more than someone bothered by having the plot revealed.
Although I do agree that the Ender's Game intro is superior to the Speaker one.
posted
I very much enjoyed the intro to SftD. It really doesn't give very much away, IMHO, and provides good background for how he came to write the story. You will discover, when you have finished reading SftD, that the intro does not spoil the story at all, at least it didn't for me (and I generally dislike spoilers).
**Ela**
[This message has been edited by Ela (edited September 16, 2001).]
posted
I never read an introduction to any book until I have read the book. I sometimes read Acknowledgements if I know the author. Most intros are just essays on the novel, which are pointless if you haven't yet read the novel.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved the intros. I just wish he'd given fair warning that there were spoilers there! I too got a few pages into it before I realized he was giving stuff away; I stopped reading and went back to it when I was done, and was glad it was there. Vurry interesting. 'Twas just disappointed there wasn't one in some of his other books. ^^
Posts: 10 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card doesn't care if anyone reads the intros. He doesn't think they're necessary really. But since they were reprints (both EG and SFTD), he said he thought he had to do something new.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, I've just finished Speaker, and picked up a copy of Xenocide, and guess what? There's no intro to Xenocide *laughs* I guess OSC was trying to make amends
[This message has been edited by ansible (edited October 03, 2001).]
posted
Actually, there is an intro to my edition of Xenocide. And I disagree with those who think the intros contained spoilers - they spoiled nothing for me, and I am a person who heartily dislikes spoilers.
posted
If anyone is still interested in opinions on this topic...
I think that introductions are great to read after the book is finished. I never read it before, because alot of times they do contain spoliers and so I think it's just better to wait until you've read it.
posted
I can't describe how much the intro to Speaker of the Dead has helped me. I just read it for the first time very recently and during this time I had a serious case of writers block where I couldn't bring myself to even enter a word processor. Well there was part in the Speaker intro that really helped me. The part where he says he intended to write Speaker first not Ender's Game but how he would have to write a long boring intro chapter about how Ender would come to be a Speaker. He decided it owuldn't work so he went back and wrote Ender's Game first. That inspired me because originally my story took place twenty years after the initial conflict began, I realized that I would spend many chapters explaining in a boring fashion how battles turned out and what happened. It couldn't work. So I went back and rather then starting at my original beginning I'm starting at the beginning of the conflict. Granted that emans I now have twenty six years of events to write rather then six but it will be good practice even if I fail.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the insights into how he came up with Speaker were really, really cool. And learning how he didn't ACTUALLY want to write EG, until he wanted to write SftD, and had to have a prequel, of sorts.
Posts: 3658 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Larner, I think that would be against some kinda copyright on the books. I dunno, you'd have to check with the moderators on that...
Posts: 738 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I for one dislike reading an introduction that contains anything that will spoil the plot. I prefer discovering the plot through the novel. Fortunately for me, I have a general disliking of introductions, acknowledgments, and appendixs so the intro. to Speaker wasn't a problem for me, because I skipped right over it. I don't think I actually read the intro until my tenth or twelve through the series. Otherwise I would have been right with ansible on this one. I wholeheartly agree that the into would have served better as a proloude.
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this thread proved, both in its original and in its revival, is that no matter what an author does, or doesn't do, he is not going to please everybody. Here is my 2 cents.
I first read SPEAKER without an introduction (ENDER'S GAME, too, for that matter.) When I began writing my book, ORSON SCOTT CARD: Writer Of The Terrible Choice, I din't know that those introductions existed.
When I was almost ready with my finished manuscript, I found the editions with the Introductions. I swore in exasperation that I had not read them earlier, ESPECIALLY the one to SPEAKER. It is a marvelous insight into Card's creative method and style. But it was too late to make extensive changes in the manuscript!
Grandma Edie, also known as Edith S. Tyson, author of ORSON SCOTT CARD: Writer of the Terrible Choice.
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't waste too many tears over me! I knew the hazards of writing about a living, writing, author.
Write about Shakespeare, and he is not going to come out with a brilliant new play just after the book is printed. Write about someone still writing and anything might happen.
I am just thankful that I was able to get SARAH and REBEKAH into my book. If I had kept to the original schedule, I wouldn't have gotten either one!
Posts: 74 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just read the intro for "Speaker," actually, and I have to say that it will help me enormously in reading the book, and I seriously doubt that OSC is dumb enough to give away the plot. And even when an intro does give away portions of a plot, the entire point is to see how the characters came to that point, how they react to it, etc. I know that, especially in "Shadow Puppets," what actually happens (though that is incredibly riveting) is not nearly as important to me as a reader than how those things affect the relationships and loyalties between the characters. And also, retreating back to the intro itself- I personally would love to read about Orson's light-bulb changing habits.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
