FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Discussions About Orson Scott Card » Orson Scott Card has closed mind. (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Orson Scott Card has closed mind.
VenomsValentine
Member
Member # 5359

 - posted      Profile for VenomsValentine   Email VenomsValentine         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry-I just scanned the posts and missed the sex stuff entirely. But I wholeheartedly agree with Amka on that issue. I just don't like people refering to LDS members as "fundamentalist" or radical or whatever. I realize that some people may claim to be members while holding allegiances to apostate groups-like polygamists or other radical groups,or that the "cultural mormons" in utah might walk as close to the line as possible while still maintaining membership. However, out here in the missionfield (not utah for you non-mos) I guess it's a little different. We still marry early if we can, but it's not because we want to have sex as soon as possible, we just consider family to be the source of our greatest joys. And let me tell you, life's moments just don't get any better than spending time with your family, and the LDS church teaches that these joys are what eternity is about. So of course we can't wait to start a family of our own, and the more kids the better for most of us. I think the whole issue of orthodox/fundamentalists mormons comes from people who want to do bad things and still consider them members of the Lord's church. "Oh yes", they sneer. "I'm a member of the church. Just not one of those fundamentalists. I am an individual and I don't let anyone tell me to do anything I don't agree with". Well guess what? If you aren't following the teachings of the church, you don't truly belong to it. That's what active and inactive refer to, by the way. An active member follows the commandments, holds a temple recommend, goes to his meetings and fulfills his callings. I guess he's what you call a "fundamentalist". Then there are those who disobey the commandments, or claim some intellectual right to disregard the teachings of the Lord's chosen seer, or get involved with polygamists or other groups. I wouldn't even really consider these people members at all, except for the fact that their names are still on church records. Understand? Sorry, I might not be very comprehensible, I keep getting interrupted by my one-year old and I lose my train of thought. But I would be glad to discuss mo culture with anyone. I'm especially interested in the experiences of people living in utah, since my experience has led me to feel somewhat more linearly on the subject. Thanks for your time. [Smile] VV
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlainN
Member
Member # 5340

 - posted      Profile for BlainN   Email BlainN         Edit/Delete Post 
Val -- Fundamentalist Mormons are generally those who hold to more extreme versions of the basic Mormon beliefs than the average bear. They do things like wear old-style garments, practice polygamy, deny the priesthood to blacks, and criticize the Salt Lake church as being apostate and worldly.

Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon.

Unorthodox Mormons are more apt to have a piercing or a tattoo, drink caffienated sodas, wear colored shirts on Sunday, maybe have hair longer than missionary length and facial hair, use colorful language, etc. They aren't necessarily sinning more than their Orthodox brethren, but they may be more likely to talk about it.

Orthodox Mormons tend to worry that Unorthodox Mormons are drifting into apostacy. Unorthodox Mormons tend to think that Orthodox Mormons need to loosen up and be more real.

Fundamentalist Mormons consider them all apostate.

Now, if you want to, we can talk more about Mormon types (including "so-called" intellectuals), start a thread about it in Nauvoo and we'll have a good time.

HTH,
Blain

Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
VenomsValentine
Member
Member # 5359

 - posted      Profile for VenomsValentine   Email VenomsValentine         Edit/Delete Post 
okey dokey...will do. And thanks for the info. [Wink]
Posts: 89 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not just that Card's characters favor marriage, it's that he personally values it very, very highly as (if we are to take his character's words as his own) the highest of human endeavors:

pg. 98 of Shadow Puppets has the scientist Anton speak, in very cliched and out-dated language (which sounds like the 1930s or 50s more than a few centuries hence) in condemnation of his "fleeting" homosexual (the language is so vague it could be some other desire he's discussing, but it follows the form of the closet very closely) impulses and of finding a wife and raising kids late in life, even if they're not his own, as his ultimate comfort.

As the original poster identified, Petra seems almost driven to reproduce at her young age (of course all the Battle School kids are by definition precocious).

Also interesting is the way Card repeats certain patters, at least in the Ender series. Anton's marriage to a woman who already has kids is like Ender's marriage to Novinha with her ready-made family. And like Valentine's willingness to step out of immortality for Jakt.

Card writes of the unknowable otherness of woman (easy to do since most of his lead characters are adolescent males) in the most cliched and time-lost language, as if men and women really are Mars and Venus, opposites attracting because of their essential mystery. Which makes it about more than reproduction, as does his father figures willingness to raise children not their own.

And then there are all the chaste couples he arranges, over and over again:

Miro and Ela
Quara and Grego
Ender and Valentine
Peter and Valentine
Bean and Petra
Virlomi and Suriyawong
Achilles and Petra
Marcao and Novinha
Peter and Wang-mu (who, like Petra and Bean, played at being lovers until they fell in love)

There's something about that precipice between the platonic and the sexual in hetero relationships that intrigues Card greatly, at the very least.

Reading Anton's retro speech out of Shadow Puppets was a shock to me, a case of the author's voice breaking through the fiction and disrupting the flow to deliver a message that sounded an awful lot like homophobia. I have to wonder which is more vital, more important to the author.
[Evil Laugh]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
Reading back through this thread further (I chose to revive it because the title was exactly what I was thinking this morning), I see that others are as troubled by Anton's speech as I was in Shadow Puppets.

I think Synaesthesia comes closest to getting at some of my own concerns, but I'll also steal from BlainN and post what I think are the salient points.

1. It's Anton, not Volescu who we're talking about Volescu is the next closest thing to evil in the Bean stories after Achilles; he's the bad scientist who took Anton's ideas and bred babies for organ donation and genius just because he could, who then killed them all (save Bean) when he was about to be caught. He is Bean's distant relative, and AFICR no reference was made to his sexuality, thank goddess.

2. I liked Anton, why does he have to be an idiot now? Anton's sad dilemma, a genius disallowed to think his most vital thoughts, was a touching one, sensitively portrayed by Card in Shadow. Sister Carlotta's visit with him was wonderfully evocative and tragic, one of the most memorable parts of that book. Now we return to him again, Bean meets the man who is pretty much the god that called him into life, and he gets a lecture on reproducing like a bunny?

3. There's nothing wrong with marriage in itself Or, at least, I'd say it's a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. And I really do want Petra and Bean to get together and reproduce, I think it's all the more important since his life might be so short. BUT, I also understand why he doesn't want to, and I find it contradictory that Card varies marriage so much he sees no difference between having your own kids or adopting, step-parenting, etc. Since, for example, gay couples (we "friends" who have such "fleeting" desires that they can't even be mentioned by name) can also do non-genetic parenting (and even genetic, with willing donors).

[Kiss]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geoffrey Card
Member
Member # 1062

 - posted      Profile for Geoffrey Card   Email Geoffrey Card         Edit/Delete Post 
[tongue in cheek]

Aw he's just talking a lot about reproduction because he thinks it'll get him grandkids faster [Smile]

Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zotto!
Member
Member # 4689

 - posted      Profile for Zotto!   Email Zotto!         Edit/Delete Post 
You know, it's been awhile since I've read the shadow books (well, not THAT long, they're pretty recent [Smile] ) but I still hear people complaining about all the "speeches" that Card has his characters say "as a way to express his personal views" on various subjects such as marriage etc. But...why is it a bad thing that some of his characters seem to share some of his beliefs? To my mind (admittedly not the most logical of places), all the "speeches" I remember characters giving were used to drive the story forward, not to "indoctrinate" people to OSC's viewpoint. The thing is, we who love Card have learned to recognize his philosophy when we see it, and so when a character in his fiction shares his views, apparently some of us will jump on that and say that OSC is just using that character as a mouthpiece. But...should Card only write about characters that are utterly unlike him? I would think he'd be allowed to write about any kind of person he'd want to, INCLUDING people he might have a lot in common with. Wasn't Ender's mom a mormon? Is it any surprise that some of her views will probably overlap with Card's? I think OSC has spent a lot of time writing about people he violently DISagrees with (I'm thinking Josif from Songmaster now) and I never got the feeling that he was using those characters as a mouthpiece, because I ALREADY KNEW what his positions are on the issues he raises. And you know what? I loved Josif. I thought he was a great character. I loved Ender's mom, I thought she was a great character as well. The fact that she happens to share some of her views with OSC doesn't bother me, because...well, why should it? LOTS of people in real life probably have beliefs that are very similar to Card's. Why should he only have stories revolve around people he disagrees with?

Boy, I hope that all that made sense. It seems to in MY head... [Big Grin]

(By the way, in case it sounds that way, I wasn't posting this as an "attack" on anyone who disagrees with me. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. [Smile] )

And Geoff, LOL. [Big Grin]

[ August 13, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]

Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryan_Larsen
Member
Member # 5530

 - posted      Profile for Ryan_Larsen   Email Ryan_Larsen         Edit/Delete Post 
Hm, interesting.

There's an old saying- "Don't judge the past by the present." In Science-Fiction this saying could just as easily apply- "Don't judge the future by the present."

Who knows what the culture has swayed to in Card's books? They're deffinately not in the year 2003. Marriage was valued in the 1950's, why couldn't it sway back to that way in the future?

Posts: 24 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
It's not really the fact that Card's characters speak in his voice that troubles me; I mean, when does fiction ever do anything else but represent the author's perspective?

It's that, if these really are Card's views, do I retain any interest in reading his works? It's a case of a great storyteller telling stories I don't want to hear.

And, in the case of Dr. Anton, whose speech troubled me much more than Mama Wiggin's, it's the way his rhetoric of inner, lasting peace matches the rhetoric of modern-day oppression. He might as well be an argument for the Ex-Gay movement, and I find that affinity highly distasteful.

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
And as far as future history, sure, we have no idea how conservative or liberal the future will be (though the standing SF model is Gene Roddenberry's utopia of individuality I think); but even if marriage becomes centrally valued again (after a period where all religions were apparently discounted due to governmental prerogatives), does it follow that homosexuality will become something that can't even be mentioned? Did the Dr. have a memory device implanted to correct that prediliction as well?
Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ryan_Larsen
Member
Member # 5530

 - posted      Profile for Ryan_Larsen   Email Ryan_Larsen         Edit/Delete Post 
I suppose that we can read from what we read what we wish to read. [Wink] If you know what I mean. Sometimes we as human-beings, and especially authors, tend to read into things too much. I do it all the time, so don't think I'm pointing fingers at only you.

In other words, I understand your point, but as for myself I'll let Card write as he wishes to write about whatever topics he wishes to write about. Who knows what he actually meant by what he wrote? I know, for myself, sometimes people take rather a deep meaning of something I meant to be rather shallow, if you catch my drift.

Maybe you should ask Card himself?

[ August 13, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ryan_Larsen ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Maccabeus
Member
Member # 3051

 - posted      Profile for Maccabeus   Email Maccabeus         Edit/Delete Post 
At the moment I'm in the middle of _Manifold:Space_, having recently finished _Manifold:Time_. Baxter, so far as I can tell, is as different from Card as it gets. But his characters say and think inane things about marriage and kids too. "This is all we have, Malenfant. You and me. We've no future or past, because we don't have kids, nobody who might carry on the story. Just bubbles, adrift in time. Here, shimmering, gone."

I find this kind of thing tedious, but I hardly notice it in Card.

Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TwosonPaula
Member
Member # 5511

 - posted      Profile for TwosonPaula   Email TwosonPaula         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm not saying that love doesn't exist as a teenager because I know first hand it does, but merriage is not an important goal no matter how moral or mature you are.

I'd have to say that this may be true for guys, but a lot of girls start dreaming about getting married when they're little, and that continues on. Not that all teen girls want to marry right away, but often, when girls "fall in love" in high school, they think of the guy as "the guy I'm going to marry".
Also, morality DOES play a huge part in whether or not teens get married. As does maturity. I met my husband when we were 16 and we started dating right away. From the very beginning of our relationship, we knew that we were both looking for a person to share a life with, and marriage was a huge part of our plans right away. We saw "dating" as very immature, unless a mate is what you were looking for, and we scoffed at those kinds of "teen-age" relationships. We got married two years later and have been very happy together every since. (We are twenty-one.) The Bible says that if a man is beginning to be "inappropriate" with a woman, that they should get married before her virtue is ruined. That helped us decide when to get married, when we realized that being virtuous was getting tougher and that we might make a huge mistake. But we have never felt that we got married too early...it was a pain waiting as long as we did. (And not just because we couldn't have sex.)
Truthfully, our road has been tough because of our early marriage, but that has served to draw us closer, not tear us apart. That's because age doesn't have much to do with staying married. It's very much about choosing an appropriate partner from the beginning, and keeping your commitment to each other.
Anyway, maturity and morality served to bring two teens together in holy matrimony.

Posts: 113 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Petra'sDaughter
Member
Member # 5539

 - posted      Profile for Petra'sDaughter   Email Petra'sDaughter         Edit/Delete Post 
"Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon."

Admittedly written tongue in cheek, but hardly fits any people I know. Living smack dab in the middle of grand ole' SLC I can honestly say I have met anyone who qualifies as your definition of orthodox. Maybe it's different where you are from.

Interesting thoughts on the whole "Card is anti-gay" topic--I'm curious why the desire for family (Anton's speech) is considered anti-gay...Many gay people adopt or have invitro or (for men) have a surrogate carry a baby containing one partner's genetic material. Anton's solution, (a sexless marriage with a woman), is perhaps not the most ideal solution for someone with his "proclivities" but his motives for doing so are hardly unique to him as a gay man. Also, the main character in Songmaster has a homosexual experience (can't remember his name) albeit with a negative ending because of some kind of implant (I think, it's been a long time...)

Oh, and the whole "closed-minded" thang---have to say that would strike a nerve with me because I am trying to figure out why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded. Someone explain, please. I think our society is definately way too "open minded" for my children's safety, how about yours? (Legal simulated child porn, anyone?) Why is God an ugly word in school while f*** etc. are perfectly permissable? String me up and paint me as a conservative...I'ma waitin fer my tar and feathers. [Razz]

Posts: 46 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Interesting thoughts on the whole "Card is anti-gay" topic--I'm curious why the desire for family (Anton's speech) is considered anti-gay...Many gay people adopt or have invitro or (for men) have a surrogate carry a baby containing one partner's genetic material.
Those gay people do that while maintaining a gay relationship. Anton spoke of those 'dalliances' as being fleeting and ultimately, profoundly unsatisfying.

quote:
Anton's solution, (a sexless marriage with a woman), is perhaps not the most ideal solution for someone with his "proclivities" but his motives for doing so are hardly unique to him as a gay man.

Anton is no longer a "gay" man, at least by his own definition. He's a married heterosexual. And where did you get the idea that his relationship to his "little woman" wasn't sexual? He implied they would try to have children naturally, grateful if it wasn't too late, and try other means only if that failed.

I'm constantly struck in this thread by what people read into Card, without even bothering to see if he put it there himself first.

quote:


Also, the main character in Songmaster has a homosexual experience (can't remember his name) albeit with a negative ending because of some kind of implant (I think, it's been a long time...)

Oh, it's definitely something that troubles Card enough for him to ponder and use his art to explore. But Anton's reading of his OWN life, all to get Bean to spawn when Bean had very concrete and scientifically sound reasons for not doing so read, at least to me, as a complete rejection of homosexuality as a lifestyle, as an existence, as a way of being a person. For this gay man, it was a very, very distressing couple of pages.

quote:

Oh, and the whole "closed-minded" thang---have to say that would strike a nerve with me because I am trying to figure out why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded. Someone explain, please. I think our society is definately way too "open minded" for my children's safety, how about yours? (Legal simulated child porn, anyone?) Why is God an ugly word in school while f*** etc. are perfectly permissable? String me up and paint me as a conservative...I'ma waitin fer my tar and feathers.

And you might get them, elsewhere. Let me turn your question around; what exactly is open-minded and moral about encouraging gay people to masquerade as straights, because of an author's belief that men and women are made one way, and no other?

[Dont Know]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post 
Turning the question around only proves you have no answer for it.

I call it the "Grease" paradox. If the Greaser becomes a preppie, he's a sell-out and denying himself, but if a preppie becomes a Greaser, she's opening her mind, and freeing herself from shackles.

Ooh-ooh-ooohh!

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and it's hi-larious that people can come and voice thier opinions about the close-mindedness of Orson Scott Card, and his intolerance for other people's ideas and beliefs, thus getting thier own contrary ideas and beliefs broadcast to all of cyberspace on a website that he is paying for and still keep a straight face.

(Sure, threads get deleted here once in a while, but those are generally not for ideas--those are for personal attacks.)

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cactus Jack
Member
Member # 2671

 - posted      Profile for Cactus Jack           Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, and to answer your question, and the previous question, and my paradox (because I do think they were worth answering) once we cubbyhole ourselves, we DO cut ourselves off from other options. This does not make us closed minded. If that were the case, the only way to be open minded would be to never make any decisions about anything.

What makes us open-minded is having chosen.

Thus, making it seem like a Greaser is only denying himself and making himself miserable when he tries being a preppie IS a celebration of closed-mindedness. So is implying that a man with homosexual inclinations who wants to try to be a father the old-fasioned way is engaging in a "masquerade."

Now--and here's the key--voicing those beliefs once you form them does not make you close minded either. Especially when you've given free forum to anybody who wants to disagree with you.

Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SusieQ
New Member
Member # 5558

 - posted      Profile for SusieQ   Email SusieQ         Edit/Delete Post 
I just want to throw in my two cents.

Personally, I think it's silly to say that someone has a closed mind for writing about something he believes in. I see no correlation between these two ideas.

Secondly, before anyone asks- I am not religious. I believe there is some sort of higher power, but I don't know what it is and I do not follow any structured religion.

I believe that marriage is much more than a sheet of paper- it is making two people into one. Under Canadian and US law, a married couple can be considered one person, legally. You can verify this for yourselves (this is why a husband/wife cannot be forced to testify against their spouse).

I don't think the high modern marriage failure rate has anything to do with the sexual revolution- I think it has to do with lack of commitment. How many couples break apart because they suddenly find they have nothing in common? If you really work hard at a relationship, you can make it work, but only if you want to and both of you are really willing to try. Communication is the biggest steppingstone and causes the most problems.

I'm 21 and I've been with my husband since I was sixteen. We've been married for almost three years. And we live in Canada.

Everyone is ready for marriage at a different age. It has much more to do with maturity and commitment than anything else. I don't agree with marrying so that you can have sex, which is why I think premarital sex is okay within reason. Marriage should be a melding of souls, two best friends sharing their lives together.

And if Orson Scott Card wants his characters to get married, why shouldn't he? Everyone longs for a soulmate- "no man is an island". Some just find them earlier than others.

Posts: 3 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
I see I've touched a nerve. Three responses to one post?

let's see:

1) I didn't choose the thread title, I'm a late entrant to this months-long discussion; but I did join in because I agreed with some of the comments.

2) I am personally not pro-marriage, but I don't frown on those who are. That's not the part of the debate I care about. Get married, get married young, do what makes you happy. So should Bean, if that's his choice. It's the particular argument that Anton advances that bothers me.

3) Card paying for people to vent their opinions; that's laudable, but you can't imagine that he doesn't see some sort of benefit despite what ANYONE says. For all the altruism, it's also self-promotion. I'd expect no less of any professional publication than to air dissenting letters.

4) I completely reject the notion that open-mindedness means open to anything. Some things ARE better than others, and Card is PICKING one side of the debate when he writes a character like Anton. I pick the other side, and find Anton offensive. I don't have to accept everything in the world just because I want to be accepted myself. I just draw my line somewhere else.

5) And I've never said Card's not free to make whatever choices he wants. And to write about them. I've only said I hated reading it, and it made me put the book down. I don't know if I'll ever pick it up, or in fact read Card again. I know, "gee, big loss." And that's fine. Plenty of other authors, and plenty of other readers. All I'm sharing is my disappointment in this one book, out of a series I had up until that point been enjoying immensely (I read all volumes in the past month).

Maybe I'll add more upon re-reading; haven't really got the hang of quoting on this board yet. [Wall Bash]

Oh, and the answer to this:
quote:

why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded.

is too obvious, which is why I didn't give one. The question is rhetorical and loaded, she's already answered it herself. What would be the point?

[ August 19, 2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: cornekopia ]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
blacwolve
Member
Member # 2972

 - posted      Profile for blacwolve   Email blacwolve         Edit/Delete Post 
It might be obvious to you, but it's certainly not obvious to me, so can you humor us poor idiots and give us the answer?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wendybird
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for Wendybird   Email Wendybird         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My guess is OSC couldn't have found a hero out of her if she hadn't wanted to get married.


Petra's desire to get married has very little to do with her heroism. She is a hero character because of her participation in the bugger war. Her desire to get married is a part of her life experience but it is not what qualifies her as a hero. As someone already mentioned, if it wasn't for the knowledge that Bean will die young most likely she wouldn't be considering marrying young. The factor of an early death prompts her to have an early marriage. I am having trouble understanding how you directly corrolate her marrying Bean at a young age with her heroism.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
In all my reading, I didn't feel that Bean's early death was the only driving force for their marriage, despite the fact that Card constantly portrayed that in the book.

The one point that so far only Cornekopia has mentioned (in my reading back through the posts) is that Bean & Petra, remember, are EXTREMELY gifted people. By that, I mean that their mental age was so far beyond their physical/chronological age in asychrony, that it was a normal desire for them to want to marry. They never THOUGHT of themselves as young, or as kids or teenagers. Mentally they are adults, probably well past many of us in understanding. I personally never thought about their physical age when reading of their marriage.

I have viewed most battle-school grads as mental adults -- obviously they are. So what's the beef about them getting married? You have more trouble believing they would think about marriage than you have believing they could run a whole army or country? Almost everyone in their entire peer group was either another adult, or another battleschool grad.

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
wieczorek
Member
Member # 5565

 - posted      Profile for wieczorek   Email wieczorek         Edit/Delete Post 
I wouldn't say that OSC has a closed mind at all. I can't even imagine...okay, I mislead even myself. I can imagine WHY someone might say that, but I think that the person behind such a statement is truly the one with a closed mind. I quite often say of myself that I suffer from closed mindedness, but in reality I mean that I quite often act on impulse.
The reason why many of OSC's books may be along the same topic could be, for we know, that he truly enjoys this genre and idea (which I am quite happy to find that he does, seeing as he is my favorite author). Because someone does something in the manner as something they have previously done, does not necessarily mean that it reads the same way at all. All of OSC's books have a unique twist that makes them enjoyable to read. OSC has an open mind.

Also, in Shadow of the Hegemon, when Petra and Bean get back to Ribeirao Preto, don't you recall the moment when Petra was walking with Bean somewhere outside when Petra said that she was going to have children. Then Bean replied that he had no intention of ever having children. In response, Petra said that she expected this from him, because women give birth, not men. Then they had a conversation that I wouldn't really call an argument, but Bean ended it by saying that he could never have children and THEN told Petra about his disease. Until then, Petra didn't know about his disease that included an early death. So, it is false to say that if Petra hadn't known about Bean's disease, the two never would have married.
The true reason why they got married is that Petra and Bean wanted to do invetro fertilization and the process required that the two be married. So, Petra Arkanian became Petra Delphiki, and then they tried to switch Anton's Key.

[ August 21, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: wieczorek ]

Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Farmgirl
Member
Member # 5567

 - posted      Profile for Farmgirl   Email Farmgirl         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay BlainN, one question: you wrote:

___________________________________________
Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon.
_________________________________________________

I'm not a Mormon, but I did attend services there for awhile while "investigating" it (decided not to join) -- and I thought I had heard of everything they believe, but not this Jello thing -- can you explain the thinking of that to me please?

Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
The Jello thing is a cultural joke. [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It might be obvious to you, but it's certainly not obvious to me, so can you humor us poor idiots and give us the answer?
Not that I think it will really clarify anything for anyone, but here goes:

Answer: immorality, hedonism, profanity and pornography are not considered liberating, freedom of expression is. Morality and self-control are not considered close-minded, but telling others the best way to live is.

Her question is analogous to asking a husband "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

[No No]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cornekopia
Member
Member # 5528

 - posted      Profile for cornekopia   Email cornekopia         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The true reason why they got married is that Petra and Bean wanted to do invetro fertilization and the process required that the two be married. So, Petra Arkanian became Petra Delphiki, and then they tried to switch Anton's Key.
And what do you think of Anton's advice to them before they did. Was it sound? Is the only satisfaction in life to be found in reproduction?
[Wave]

Posts: 8 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2