posted
While searching for Ender's Game quotations, I came across the Hitler/Ender controversy. What on earth inspired someone to write that crap?
Don't worry- I don't need anyone to explain to me the theory's fallacy. What I'm wondering is- what's been decided? Are these guys just paranoid lunatics, incredibly stupid of any novel that holds depth, or were they so insanely jealous of Card's talent that they needed to conduct a smear campaign?
That's a bit simplistic on my part, but recently somebody posted (on another fora) a link to a forum in which Elaine Radford and the guy who gave her the idea posted. And they admitted—bragged, actually—that this was an attempt to prevent Speaker for the Dead from winning a Nebula Award.
I'm glad it didn't succeed. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen the guy's post in another forum- and his entire "essay" starts out with calling OSC an asshat, so yeah... I figured he had some personal vendetta. If you want to criticize the man's work in an eloquent manner, fine, but to throw out junior highschool insults, and provide no evidence of asshattery other than some vague anecdotes? He claimed Robert Adams tried to punch him during a party and it was OSC's fault. My lord... how childish.
And to be so upset simply because you didn't enjoy the book and others did... Wah, wah, wah.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How funny - I can't remember ever BEING at a party with Robert Adams, or having any discussion with Adams apart from how much he tips (he gave everybody fives - way out of my league, I'm afraid). So how I got Adams to try to punch anybody ... besides, I never MET Adams until he was on a motorized wheelchair, at which point I would have thought his punching days were over.
The things people do to make themselves look cool.
I hear that Solon.com has had some posts attacking IGMS, too, which is just silly. I mean, how many magazines is "too many"? If nobody wants IGMS, then it will fail and go away. If enough people want it for it to succeed, then THOSE people are happy, and people who don't like it can read something else. It's not like I'm picking their pocket or forcing them to read it.
So it comes down to some kind of vague wish that I didn't exist. I just don't get it. It's not like acting, where if I get a part, somebody else doesn't get that part. My presence in publishing doesn't keep anybody else's book from getting published; my magazine merely provides more places where authors can sell their stories. Yet there are those so filled with hate or rage or ... or whatever ... that they can't let anything I do go unattacked.
I'd return the favor, but I don't CARE what they do, so it's hard to work up any dudgeon about it ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do appreciate knowing that Radford and friend admitted that the Hitler article was simply using political correctness as a weapon to try to destroy somebody they didn't like for other reasons.
Hey ... do I get credit for being borked before Bork? (I also wrote a story about a guy named Bork - that's got to mean something ...)
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
His ranting and raving was so childish that most people in the forum, even those who had never read Ender's Game, called him on his idiocy. He used nothing but anecdotes to prove how wrong and stupid you were, the Robert Adams incident being one of them.
Now that I know you aren't close friends with Adams, the whole thing sounds... almost amusing. What a basketcase.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Card uses Wiggin, not to forgive Hitler, but to explain the clear difference between the motives of two people with the same action."
Posts: 161 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, not to suck up or anything, but I read through most of the first issue last night, when I was supposed to be getting work done , and it's really very good. I enjoyed the stories more than I typically enjoy an issue of Asimov's or Analog or--least of all--Fantasy and Science Fiction.
One day later, and I can't decide which was more compelling. I think Dryden's conclusion was deeply satisfying, but Wolverton's story really echoes in my mind.
(Out of curiosity, will there ever be an option to use cookies to keep me logged in, or is this something you're not doing because shared computers, as in public libraries, would end up giving the magazine away? Gee, I think I may have just answered my own question . . . never mind.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or, you know, on the other side. I think that's more likely to be the problem with a lot of the anti-Card crowd. He's not J.K. Rowlings, after all (though it would speak so well of humanity if he were).
Not that Rowlings doesn't have people claiming that she's trying to lead children to Satan worship. I mean, everyone has enemies. Even me Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Card uses Wiggin, not to forgive Hitler, but to explain the clear difference between the motives of two people with the same action: Ender Wiggin had no notion he was killing real aliensûûhe thought he was still playing games.
This is from Kimberly's essay -- and what's interesting is that she, in defense of Card, makes roughly the same argument that I've seen John Kessel make in an essay critical of Card: that Card attempts to make a distinction between harm done with good intentions and harm done with bad intentions. Kessel believes that this sort of distinction is, at best, irresponsible (and in his essay, makes the specific argument that the first two Ender books actually glorify well-intentioned harm in a way that feeds adolescent power fantasies); Kimberly, as far as I can tell, believes that it is essential to the maintenance of community. I'll freely admit to being on the fence about it, as I think Kimberly's much closer to understanding Card's real intent (insofar as I can even pretend to understand it) but am personally more inclined to view most of Ender's actions with horror despite the justifications.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That one phrase, "Ender's actions" kinda misses the point.
And in a way that horrifies me
The Hive Queens, in their attack on Earth, killed hundreds of millions of individually sentient beings (of course, most of them were Chinese, but I'm not sure what that has to do with it). Ender, commanding the human invasion, killed possibly several tens of thousands of the Hive Queens (and deterraformed--slagged--a planetary biosphere).
If we hold the Hive Queens guiltless because they didn't know what they were doing, then we must hold Ender equally blameless. After all, they had a lot more time, evidence, and brainpower with which to figure it out (and nobody was deliberately hiding the truth from them either).
If we do not hold them guiltless, then Ender was right to wipe them out, even though they had "seen the error of their ways."
Of course Ender is horrified by his own part...but for anyone else to be horrified by Ender's part in the tragedy is to miss the point entirely. He didn't do it alone. Everyone else helped, even Val. Even the Hive Queens. "We couldn't have done it without what we learned from them." And, just as important, nobody would have wanted to do it without the horror inflicted during the first two invasions.
If there is any point in Ender's Game, it is that humans collectively bear the blood guilt for the crimes they commit, even where only a few actually were needed to carry out the crime. Or at least, that's one of the points, I don't buy the idea that you can put one interpretation on a book like Ender's Game
The point is driven home further by reiterating the pattern of responsibility twice in Ender's often brutal training.
Anyway, we could go on. The point is that people who insist on finding Card guilty of exonerating Hitler and thus make an active effort to undermine his career aren't motivated by an honest desire to understand his works. They are motivated by hatred of his other positions on various moral questions that touch closer to home.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm less bothered by the attack on the Hive Queens than I am by the killings of Bonzo and Stilson, actually. As Kessel points out, Card weaves a very deliberate -- and often quite elaborate -- web of events that is designed to make Ender's actions appear not only necessary but morally faultless to the reader; we are meant not only to sympathize with him but to idolize him, as he represents to some extent an ideal.
I don't have any patience whatsoever with the Radford essay; it's a steaming pile. But Kessel's point is one that I think is harder to dismiss, and even interesting on its own -- since, after all, his negative conclusions (as the student essay linked above demonstrates) are not necessarily negatives to all people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Survivor: That one phrase, "Ender's actions" kinda misses the point. And in a way that horrifies me.
Of course Ender is horrified by his own part...but for anyone else to be horrified by Ender's part in the tragedy is to miss the point entirely. He didn't do it alone.
I interpreted "Ender's actions" as the actions themselves, no human/motive attachment. I would be horrified by the destruction a race of people. Of the killing of a child. That's a knee-jerk, of course, but to the actions themselves, not the enactor.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like I said, you're supposed to be horrified by the violence in Card's writing. But to refer to it as "Ender's actions" is missing the entire point.
I'm not, of course. Bonzo, Stilson, and the Hive Queens all win Darwin awards in my book. So how is it that I can see so clearly that Card isn't applauding the use of lethal force?
Because I'm not desperate to avoid my own guilt.
Kessel's essay doesn't steam, he never looses his cool. That doesn't change the fact that it is a "pile" written by someone that intends to discredit rather than examine Card's writing. One has to only read Ender's Game itself for the entire argument to fall apart, and Kessel knows this. So he elaborately weaves a "programmed" course for the readers of the book, instructing them to ignore most of the text by openly questioning the reliability of Card's narration when it comes to Ender's inner struggles to cope with the situations into which he is forced.
It's a work of fiction that exists only because Card wrote it. How can his report of the critical events be unreliable?
Because Kessel's main purpose is to keep people from reading it. He'll assert anything that he believes advances his efforts in that direction.
Much like certain other people we have here on this forum. Or should we go there, Tom?
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the funniest part about those essays was the bit about how an important part of Mormon theology is justification of genocide. It is? Oh, wait, I forgot, must be in the Mormon version of the 10 commandments - you know, Thou Shalt Not Kill, Unless Thou Killest A Lot Of People, In Which Case It Is Okay. You terrible person, OSC, you.
p.s. Good heavens, Survivor, let it go already.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Okay, don't answer that. Stupid "aura of darkness", that has to be my worst (as in "most useless") superpower. Or perhaps one of the powers I don't ever actually use would take that slot, but you know how it is.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: One has to only read Ender's Game itself for the entire argument to fall apart, and Kessel knows this.
I don't actually see this. While the argument that Card is apologizing for Hitler falls apart with even a casual glance, I think Kessel's observation -- if not his conclusions -- is more grounded. What portion of the text do you think denies his argument?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
This ^^^^ is why. Every discussion I've seen you participate in recently you have painted as an epic good vs. evil struggle. It's not. It's an internet forum, and virtually everything you see here is opinion. And as such, there will be more than one interpretation. Every question will have more than one possible answer.
Welcome to the grey area, my friend.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:argument that I've seen John Kessel make in an essay critical of Card: that Card attempts to make a distinction between harm done with good intentions and harm done with bad intentions.
At first glance it would seem that sympathizing with Ender would be to sympathize with genocide since it was done with good intentions.
However, I disagree that Card was trying to say that the motives and intentions justify the actions.
Because of his intelligence and abilities, it’s easy to forget that Ender is still just a child. Due to children’s general lack of experience, understanding, and knowledge, we do not hold children to the same standards (of morality) as adults. Even though they may be aware of what they are doing, they often times do not fully comprehend the situation. Thus, the action they feel they must take is not always grounded on accurate understanding, and likewise, they often times do not fully understand the consequences of their actions.
Despite his intelligence, Ender displays his general lack of understanding several times. He is not aware that his actions resulted in the death of Bonzo and Stilson. Obviously he did not fully comprehend the consequences of his actions. Only after he was able to reflect on what he had done was he able to comprehend the significance of his actions, and obviously it troubled him.
So does that mean that lack of understanding can justify genocide? Well, no, and I don’t think Card was trying to say anything like that. If anything, it seems he was trying to stress the importance of not using ignorance as a justification, rather, every effort should be made to understand the enemy instead.
But by sympathizing with Ender, are we to some extent excusing the horrible deeds that he committed? Not necessarily. Ender being a vulnerable, inexperienced child, in my mind, is the key. We can sympathize with him, because all of us can understand how confusing the world can be when we are young, and we can also understand that children sometimes make bad decisions, which is also why we don't usually try children as adults in criminal cases.
Ender's Game helps us to understand that genocide can never be justified, but by making Ender a child, we can allow ourselves to forgive him.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something that I was thinking of...what if Ender had gone to Ender's World and found the Bugger Queen and learned from her like he did in the book, but instead of learning that the Buggers were generally peaceful creatures and that the Invasions had been mistakes, he learned that they fully comprehended individual human beings and that they were so xenophobic that they hated humans and wanted to destroy us, and would continue right down to the last queen.
In such a case, would genocide have been justified?
Let me specify that this hypo is an us-or-them scenario, with no other ending possible that would allow the survival of both species.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Something that I was thinking of...what if Ender had gone to Ender's World and found the Bugger Queen and learned from her like he did in the book, but instead of learning that the Buggers were generally peaceful creatures and that the Invasions had been mistakes, he learned that they fully comprehended individual human beings and that they were so xenophobic that they hated humans and wanted to destroy us, and would continue right down to the last queen.
In such a case, would genocide have been justified?
Let me specify that this hypo is an us-or-them scenario, with no other ending possible that would allow the survival of both species.
If its truly an us-or-them situtation (in real life of course, that is just about never the case- exceptions are really really rare and practically none have unanimous agreement) it is justified. Thats the varsalese case, more or less. (Here, we can communicate but communucation is still useless.)
I'm sure though, that another way could have been found. like raise the hive queen to not fear humans or something. There's always a middle ground, except when there's not.
BTW: Xenocide, not genocide.
Posts: 31 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I've changed my stance a bit. Obviously books like Ender's Game speak to people in different ways. The message that I came away with is this.
The ability to kill is a very powerful think, but the ability to understand is equally powerful. In contrast, the lack of understanding can be equally destructive. Such is the case with Ender and the entire human race. Their lack of understanding led them to the atrocious act of genocide. Can that act be justified? Never. However, to eternally condemn Ender for his naivete would be to show the same lack of understanding that led to the destruction of the Bugger race.
We can never forget the wrongfulness of what they did, but if we have enough understanding and empathy, we just might find it within ourselves to be able to forgive, to be able to make things right in the future.
The Piggies were also victims of grave misunderstanding. In their case especially do intentions become important. Not that those intentions excuse what they did, but understanding them can help us to forgive them.
And so it is with humanity. Taking the effort to try to understand the other side will prevent much of the problems we see in the world. However, that is unlikely to happen very often. So what do we do in the face of the inevitable injustices and crimes that are committed against us an against humanity each and every day? We can either fight back with more ignorance, or we can try to temper that ignorance with compassion and empathy.
And that is the lesson that I saw in the Ender series.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that intention/action was really key to Ender's Game though it was very much part of Speaker for the Dead. The point of EG, I thought, had to do with the idea that a person can be trained as a child to do something horrible without (we hope) fundamentally tainting who that person will be. It affects them, of course. But it is not necessarily the case that they become irretrievably evil. Ender uses the influence of his victory not to seize more power, but to reveal the truth of what happened, that the monsters he killed could have been our brothers (sisters). But the monster/brother theme is very strong throughout.
The people running the show did not induce either Stilson or Bonso to bully Ender, by the way. Which is not to say they deserved what they got. I think if it had not been for the oversight, he would have realized his potential to kill sooner and possibly made the amends that he eventually makes. But he was kept from actually knowing that he had killed anyone. He was killing, by proxy, his brother Peter. At least, that is how I see it.
P.S. I guess I thought of something I wanted to elaborate on, and that is the tendency of many people to find what will really annoy someone and dig away at it. I see it with my children much more clearly than I could see it growing up. It dawned on me one day that my toddler was taking delight in making me afraid. At the same time, my 8 year old had a friend who daily teased about something that particularly bothered my child. I think Stilson and Bonso both made a study of Ender to become the sort of person he really didn't like. What they didn't imagine was Ender's desire to kill such a person.
posted
The point of the book is that there are no "innocents" and no "victims" in some stories. Nobody is innocent, not even Val.
And that's what really is difficult for certain kinds of people. Those who never admit that anything they ever do could possibly be wrong will always have problems with Card's works.
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I know that he would deny that. That just means that he doesn't regard lying as wrong, when he does it
No, seriously, think about it. Why do we have to reject anything that make us feel sympathy for a character who bears terrible guilt for actions that are really wrong? If you accept that people, even non-humans like the Hive Queens and Pequenioes, can do terrible things simply because they aren't perfect, what meaning does that whole article hold? None whatsoever.
Kessel's entire argument hinges on the unquestioned belief that there are things that only an evil person could possibly do. Any suggestion that a person who did something like that isn't especially evil and fundamentally different-from-Kessel is to be treated as a transparent lie.
But Ender's Game is fiction. Ender didn't kill anyone, those people don't even exist in reality. Nor does Ender. Kessel treats the events that make Ender "evil" as realities even while he makes out that the elements that show Ender to be a compassionate and altruistic child are all deceptions by the author. Of course that level of double standard invalidates his argument.
But his need to try and make the argument is what shows us his problem. He is unwilling to be told, even in a novel, that a person just as "good" (or perhaps a bit better) could do something so terrible.
It's a rather childish belief, full of naivete and lacking any philosophical sophistication. But a lot of people cherish it, the idea that they wouldn't ever do something really wrong, no matter what the circumstances.
A more sophisticated argument hinges on the idea that everyone does what is right from an individual perspective. People never do what they think is really wrong.
I happen to disagree with this because I find no evidence that people can't do things they deeply believe to be wrong. I'm not just going off my own experience, if you look at the available evidence people often do things they previously regarded as unthinkable. Sometimes they change their beliefs about right and wrong, sometimes they confront the fact that they do things that are really wrong. But it actually happens far too often for me to accept that it never can happen.
Anyone who suggests that Card is defending the Xenocide is so laughably mistaken as to living in an alternate reality. But what he points out is something that is very hard for certain people to accept. He's saying that even a really goodhearted person, doing the best he knows how for the people he loves, can commit the worst crimes.
Oh sure, Kessel and his ilk know how to talk the talk, but at heart they believe that when they commit a crime, it isn't wrong at all because of their pure intentions. If the act is really wrong then the person who committed it must have had evil intentions. Which is where we get all these passages questioning the "assertions" made about Ender's character.
Hey, it's easy for me to talk. I never pretend to be anything other than a bad guy. Maybe I'm secretly good But I don't judge the morality of actions by whether or not I've ever done the same thing, I judge actions (including my own) by whether I believe them to be right.
By that standard, I'm not what anyone should call "good".
Posts: 763 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
