posted
I acknowledge OSC's even handed statements on homosexuality. Searching this forum has not shown me this question yet. But the forum is vast and the search engine is imperfect.
The word "bugger" appears to be an extension of "bug" to create a disparaging term for the enemy.
Equally the enemy is the enemy.
Does this mean that all people and things capable of being referred to as "buggers" are the enemy? If so, by inference this means that homosexual men (and those men who have anal intercourse with women) are the enemy, since "buggers" refers to them.
This goes against the even handed statements I acknowledged at the head of this post, so I would appreciate comments, please
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.... By inference, this sounds more like you are just trying to start trouble instead of realizing the simple truth. So relax, not everything in this world is an organized conspiracy against you.....
posted
They were called buggers because they were bugs. Giant, praying-mantis like bugs. They were enemies because they were tearing up the planet. I think you may have taken the symbolism too far...
Posts: 48 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er.. what? Just.. what? What does EG have to do with homosexuality? It's like you just pulled it out of thin air with the direct intention of making an accusation. You have no logic in your argument. By your argument anyone is a 'bugger', not just one group of people.
But whatever. it's obvious that you weren't trying to stand on logic.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, u took it a little too far, and while you have acknowleged OSC's evenhanded treatment of gays, you seem to not believe it. I am a die hard liberal, but I respect others opinions, and happen to be quite happy with what OSC has said. He has respected his own beliefs, taken into consideration the world around him, and come up with something that fits into his moral values, but doesn't condemn anyone.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It may be a cultural thing. It is a word I am unused to seeing in such frequent use and in the context of an enemy. I certainly did not say that the book was to do with homosexuality, nor do I perceive it to be. I am simply querying the use of the word.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is this coming from the fact that in some parts of the world "bugger" is a euphomism for sex, ie: "Bugger off ya slag!"?
I can understand how you could possibly be confused by that, but I am fairly certain that is not the context in which OSC means it.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Is this coming from the fact that in some parts of the world "bugger" is a euphomism for sex, ie: "Bugger off ya slag!"?
No. "Bugger off" means "Go away" in impolite parlance. It has no sexual connotation there. "Slag" tends to mean a lady of easy virtue who may or may not get paid for her services, and is usually at the bottom of whatever class system exists. There is the only sexual connotation.
"Bugger" never was a euphemism for sex, nor a euphemism at all. It was and is a specific term used to describe anal penetrative sex.
Thus that exhortation has nothing at all to do with my question.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, I may be wrong here, but I'm not. "Bugger off" directly translates into "f*** off," which does mean "go away," but f*** is still a euphemism for sex. I've also heard 'bugger' used many times in the phrase "they'r buggering." It does particularly refer to anal sex, but that is still sex.
quote:A eueu·phe·mism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (yf-mzm) n. The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive
In this instance, "bugger" is the "mild, indirect, or vague term" and "a** sex" is the "harsh, blunt, or offensive" term. So, yeah, it is a euphemism.
Edit: The fact that 'bugger' is a euphemism is the only thing that gave the initial post any grounds in reality, but I do not, in any way, think that OSC meant it as such. The formics look like bugs and 'bugger' is connotatively insulting. I would be extremely hesitant to give it any more meaning at all.
posted
A part of picking good names in fiction is connotation. Think of naming a character "Binky": it sounds silly, dinky, like someone who inherited Daddy's money but not his sense, maybe. Now name him "Manuel." He's changed ethnicities, but he also sounds more powerful and more working-class, as in manual labor, more manly -- manuely? -- too.
"Bugger" to me summons up bugs, and bugger off, and they're not cute ("buggie" might be), and the -er to me suggests they do things (in this case, kill people). The homosexual connotation didn't even occur to me. I doubt it occurred to other American readers, or to the American writer in question.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing particularly homosexual about the word "bugger". Some homosexuals engage in the act referred to by the word, but some heterosexuals and prison rapists also engage in buggery, and the act has different moral and cultural meanings in all these contexts.
The real point is that the word "bugger" is a crude slang term, regardless of what its definition might be. By applying it to a species, you are essentially insulting that species because every time you speak their name, you are saying something crude. That's the purpose of a racial epithet, and this is a rather effective one.
"Piggies" works the same way. Pigs are considered to be low animals in our culture. Adding an "EE" sound to the end of a word makes it diminuitive and childish. So calling the pequeninos "Piggies" is essentially calling them low, childish animals. It's rude, but it's effective.
However, OSC's use of the word "Piggies" is obviously not meant to comment on the value of pigs in modern society. It only draws upon the existing connotations of the word for another purpose.
Similarly, his use of the word "Bugger" has nothing to do with the actual practice of buggery, as should be obvious to any reader. He is simply drawing on the connotations of the word for another purpose.
I'm surprised that anyone would even imagine that it might be valid to take their interpretation further than that.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, 'bugger' can mean sex, but I think the person who said 'sometimes a cigar is just a cigar' got it right. They are buggers because they are bugs. But that doesn't mean that kids didn't start using that slang knowing full well the double meaning. That's exactly the kind of things kids do. I suspect that later adult picked up on the kid slang, and the word became a standard derogatory reference to the 'Formics'.
That fact that 'bugger' has a sexual reference, only makes the reference that much more derogatory in the mind of the users. Plus, kids find it immensely funny when they can work a sexual reference into anything. So, beyond kids giggling behind their hands, I don't think the word has much significants beyond the obvious.
posted
It took me a second before I realized the actress on Desperate Housewives didn't write the song.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps a 'separated by a common language' issue? I suspect the connotation of the word is way different for speakers of real English, as opposed to that American stuff.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
seriously, i don't mean to be offensive, but it is really hard to take this thread seriously. why would OSC name the buggers after anal sex?? i can imagine the responses i could get to this question, but they all seem highly unlikely. for the third time in this thread, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Posts: 124 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only Me: You seriously need to chill out. Either you're trolling, you've got some grudge against OSC, or you're being really, really insecure about the topic of homosexuality. Give it a rest, nobody, including OSC, is out to get you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:why would OSC name the buggers after anal sex
Actually, I think Puppy explained rather well why OSC had his characters use a term for anal sex as slang for the formics. I seriously doubt he was unaware of the double meaning, bu the use of that meaning was intended as one-way.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right Dag, sorry about that Puppy...i see why the bugger's would be named so in that regard, i just think that the initial post in this thread was kind of stretching it a little far. "Buggers" to me, as to many others i'm sure, brings up the image of giant scaly creepy bugs, and no other thought had really crossed my mind as to why they may be named after something else. But you're point is well taken Dag, i see now that it would probably benefit me not to post so quickly without reviewing what i'm saying and to see if someone has already answered my question. But i have a horrible tendency to do this...i used to turn in papers in school without even giving them a second glance. Bad habit...really bad habit Posts: 124 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Only Me: You seriously need to chill out. Either you're trolling, you've got some grudge against OSC, or you're being really, really insecure about the topic of homosexuality. Give it a rest, nobody, including OSC, is out to get you.
Were I trolling then it would be very much more "in your face", and rather poor netiquette.
I have no grudge. I think I had simply failed to remember how close knit a community of fans was, and how they leap to the defence of the author as a matter of course. A generalisation, I agree.
Insecure? No. Perfectly secure. I meant the post sincerely. When I read the book, the only thing that grated was the word "bugger". I set it aside for the duration of the book and treated it as something I could ignore, but afterwards I found this place, and have simply asked the question that was, if you like, 'bugging' me.
If you are linking the fact that I posted another question very close in time to this one, that is simply because I had two questions. That is in a rather old thread, of many posts. But the search engine showed it to me and it seem appropriate to ask it there.
I have no intent here other that to have asked the questions and to see the answers. I hope OSC is kind enough to answer them himself, since only he truly knows what was in his mind when he wrote his excellent stories. Nonetheless I am also interested to see other people's views.
[ May 06, 2006, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: Only Me ]
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Only Me: If so, by inference this means that homosexual men (and those men who have anal intercourse with women) are the enemy, since "buggers" refers to them.
It's true. And that's why the term 'piggies' is also used -- OSC has a deep hatred of fat people.
quote:I think I had simply failed to remember how close knit a community of fans was, and how they leap to the defence of the author as a matter of course.
If you seriously believe all Hatrackers are like that, perhaps you should take another look around here.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anything, Only, people are reacting badly to you because so MANY of OSC's fans have tread the same ground, and we're sick of the argument Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I apologize if I offended. It's not that I'm a rabid OSC fan, simply that the idea seems so silly to me. I don't remember a single instance within Ender's Game where there was any indication of homophobia, so I see no reason to suspect that the use of the word "buggers" to describe, of all things, bug-like aliens, would be an attack against gay people.
Do you realize that the word "caustic", which describes something harsh and destructive, is very close to "Caucasian?" Do you think people describe chemicals this way as a means to put down my race?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If anything, Only, people are reacting badly to you because so MANY of OSC's fans have tread the same ground, and we're sick of the argument
Now that is rather unfair, isn't it? If you are sick of it then you need neither read the thread nor participate in it. The forum is, presumably, a legitimate place to ask questions. Thus I, and presumably many before me and many after me, have asked and will ask similar questions.
I can see how you may prefer some questions not to be asked. But I think your squashing remarks are unfairly made.
If people tread the same ground, perhaps it is because the same questions arise in their minds? And if the stories were less popular perhaps thre would be fewer people treading that ground?
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I apologize if I offended. It's not that I'm a rabid OSC fan, simply that the idea seems so silly to me. I don't remember a single instance within Ender's Game where there was any indication of homophobia, so I see no reason to suspect that the use of the word "buggers" to describe, of all things, bug-like aliens, would be an attack against gay people.
Do you realize that the word "caustic", which describes something harsh and destructive, is very close to "Caucasian?" Do you think people describe chemicals this way as a means to put down my race?
You did not offend. I also did not suggest that Ender's Game had any indication of homophobia, save only that the use of the word "bugger" grated.
The word "caustic" is nothing like "caucasian".
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your post isn't its content so much as its continuity. You jumped from one idea to a seemingly completely unrelated one with absolutely no sign of transition. Your stream of conscience may have made perfect sense in your head, but your lack of proofreading left us to interpret for ourselves what you meant. And it doesn't help that many of your posts have the slightest hint of a condescending tone.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Only Me: The word "caustic" is nothing like "caucasian".
caus t ic cauc a si an
That's 6 letters in common, and only 4 letters different, and two of those are the same (a), so I'm only going to count that as 3 different letters. There are twice as many letters that the two words share in common as letters that are different.
Add the fact that they both start with "cau" and can both refer to white things and things that can hurt someone else, and I'd say they're practically the same word.
BAM, TAKE THAT, DICTIONARY! Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: The problem with your post isn't its content so much as its continuity. You jumped from one idea to a seemingly completely unrelated one with absolutely no sign of transition. Your stream of conscience may have made perfect sense in your head, but your lack of proofreading left us to interpret for ourselves what you meant. And it doesn't help that many of your posts have the slightest hint of a condescending tone.
We will disagree on the lack of link. The logic is there. It is plain, unconvoluted and simple. I am amused, however, at the ironic use of a condescending tone to tell me that I use one.
Of course, I am interpreting what you meant.
Nonetheless, this is a distraction. A critique of a posting style does not bring us any closer to an answer to the question, however satisfying it may be to deliver it.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: Hehe...you are right. I do have a habit of that.
....snip....
Honestly, though, have you actually bothered to reread your first post?
Hey "even I" can make a mistake with tone (that was a joke, by the way)
I have reread it more than once, and did so prior to posting. Now it may be that I stand too close to it to find it illogical, but I can't spot any disconnects
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Does this mean that all people and things capable of being referred to as "buggers" are the enemy?"
makes no sense. First, one who buggers would be called a "buggerer," not a "bugger." So there are no people "capable of being referred to as 'buggers'" except the formics.
Second, the connotation is clearly meant to be one way: a crude sexual pun meant to disparage the enemy.
Third, terms used for the enemy that are already words in use do not thereby denegrate that word. No one took the red stripes out of the flag after we started calling Russia the "red menace." Sales of bananas didn't drop after we started using the term "yellow peril." People named Jerry or Charlie weren't condemned during WWII or the Vietnam Conflict. Quite simply, the premise implicit in your question is anti-sensical to most people.
Fourth, as you yourself said, this is not in character with other aspects of OSC's statements on homosexuality. Combine this with the already incredible leap required to interpret it that way, requiring twisting of the usage of the word and ignoring the obvious context of the term, and you should be able to arrive at a pretty firm answer yourself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: People named Jerry or Charlie weren't condemned during WWII or the Vietnam Conflict. Quite simply, the premise implicit in your question is anti-sensical to most people.
In England the Dachshund and the German Shepherd Dog were unwelcome dogs during both the first and I think the second world wars. They were of German origin. In the USA Islam is not currently the most welcome faith despite being inherently peaceful.
In general, during wars, all people of a foreign nationality, especially the nationality of the opposing nation, are feared or reviled, even if they have been living peacefully within their "host nation" peacefully for years or are refugees such as Jewish refugees, from the holocaust and were unlikely to be spies. Such people were interned, or became victims of vigilante hatred.
It is, however, clear to me that my post was understood. After all, people are criticising the phraseology. They are not saying "I don't understand what you are asking." I expect someone will, now, though.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In England the Dachshund and the German Shepherd Dog were unwelcome dogs during both the first and I think the second world wars. They were of German origin. In the USA Islam is not currently the most welcome faith despite being inherently peaceful.
Do you see the difference - those are things with an actual characteristic in common with the "enemy." Not things related in name only.
quote:It is, however, clear to me that my post was understood. After all, people are criticising the phraseology. They are not saying "I don't understand what you are asking." I expect someone will, now, though.
I understand it very well. The examples in the preceeding post about people of that nationality being reviled expresses something very different than what you expressed in the first post, so it's not like those examples are terribly relevant.
I would suspect that the Hegemony and those who bought into reviling thirds would welcome homosexuality, since it meant no children.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In England the Dachshund and the German Shepherd Dog were unwelcome dogs during both the first and I think the second world wars. They were of German origin. In the USA Islam is not currently the most welcome faith despite being inherently peaceful. ------- Do you see the difference - those are things with an actual characteristic in common with the "enemy." Not things related in name only.
posted
Perfect example of what I'm saying. People didn't stop eating fries. They renamed them instead.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I skipped over the last half but I will make a statement.
1.The "Formics" attacked and killed millions
2. Killing = Anger
3. Formics = Anger
4.Anger usually creates derogatory terms for commonly normal terms
5. Formics = Anger = Needs Derogatory Term
6. Bugger = Derogatory Term
7. Formic = Bugger
Voila, now that we understand Bugger is a derogatory term created to express a fictional populations dislike for an enemy we can understand the context it was used in was also fictional.
Another logical extrapolation from this can be made, and that is the author associates the word Bugger with a negative emotion.
One could logically assume, therefore, that Bugger would be a derogatory term in the author's own vocabulary. Thus, to be the stated term would be a negative attribute.
However, the term Bugger has many different meanings, as do most words. Thus, if a person interprets Bugger as having one meaning that would be a foolish action on their part. However, it would be logical for said person to ask others whether they feel that is the intended definition of the word.
Said person can then inquire as the nature of the term, and as to the reason the author ised that term in a derogatory nature.
Last Argument: if one did Presume it would make a Pres out of u and me. But, since Pres is not a noun, one could replace Presume with Assume. Lets not assume anything then.
posted
This really isn't complicated...I don't get it. They look like bugs, so we insultingly called them bugs. I'm sure the hive queens on their planet, were they mad at us by the time we got there, would be calling us chimps or monkeys due to our resemblance to our evolutionary ancestors.
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bugger is a term that OSC brought into play to make the enemy seem hated, a tangible element in the human world. I'm sure you know some ignorant patriots who call Iraqis "Camel Jockeys." I think the point is that it's supposed to stir things up. I support this by bring up the fact that in the Shadow Quartet books Graff says "buggers" and corrects himself saying "formics rather." Sorry if I botched which character said, but, but the point remains the same.
Posts: 16 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
That's 6 letters in common, and only 4 letters different, and two of those are the same (a), so I'm only going to count that as 3 different letters. There are twice as many letters that the two words share in common as letters that are different.
Add the fact that they both start with "cau" and can both refer to white things and things that can hurt someone else, and I'd say they're practically the same word.
BAM, TAKE THAT, DICTIONARY! -------------------------------
quote:I can see how you may prefer some questions not to be asked. But I think your squashing remarks are unfairly made.
Only, when did any of my posts attempt to "squash" your ability to ask questions? All I did was disagree with you.
When I made the comment about this ground being tread before, it was directly in response to your assertion that your opponents were simply fans of the author who leapt to his defense as a matter of course.
I was suggesting that, on the contrary, many of OSC's fans do NOT defend him, and in fact, make the same kinds of unfounded assumptions about his writing that you have made. Those of us who defend him on this point do so because we think your position is wrong, and for no ulterior reason.
Of course that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to raise whatever points you want. However, WE are allowed to not be impressed with your logic, and to not take you very seriously because of it Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see how you may prefer some questions not to be asked. But I think your squashing remarks are unfairly made.
Only, when did any of my posts attempt to "squash" your ability to ask questions? All I did was disagree with you.
When I made the comment about this ground being tread before, it was directly in response to your assertion that your opponents were simply fans of the author who leapt to his defense as a matter of course.
I was suggesting that, on the contrary, many of OSC's fans do NOT defend him, and in fact, make the same kinds of unfounded assumptions about his writing that you have made. Those of us who defend him on this point do so because we think your position is wrong, and for no ulterior reason.
Of course that doesn't mean that you're not allowed to raise whatever points you want. However, WE are allowed to not be impressed with your logic, and to not take you very seriously because of it
I'm reminded of the Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland and the definition of words. Alternatively I took your words to mean one thing and you took them to mean another. It is of little importance. I'm glad you speak for everyone here when you say "we" so loudly.
I was not aware this was something in which one had an opponent, though. I was under the firm impression that this was a forum where one might ask questions and receive answers. The content of the answers may or may not be what one hoped to hear, and the answerers may well digress, but question and answer does not imply an opponent unless it is some sort of challenge/response setup.
Posts: 13 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Alternatively I took your words to mean one thing and you took them to mean another. It is of little importance. I'm glad you speak for everyone here when you say "we" so loudly.
He clearly did not use "we" to mean "everyone here." He expressly defined what he meant by "we" only two sentences previous in his post: "Those of us who defend him on this point do so because we think your position is wrong, and for no ulterior reason."
He's not speaking for "everyone here." He's speaking for "those who defended him on this point." Which includes me.
quote:I was under the firm impression that this was a forum where one might ask questions and receive answers.
Yes. But you haven't seem to quite grasp that this means other people can, and most likely will, disagree with you. This is not "squashing."
quote:question and answer does not imply an opponent unless it is some sort of challenge/response setup.
When you imply that those "defending" OSC (your word, one which introduces the idea of offense and opposition) are doing so out of reflex and not because of thoughtful disagreement with you, you have made it a challenge/response setup.
You seem to be operating under two misunderstandings:
1) that disagreement is akin to censorship.
2) that people disagreeing with you indicates a misunderstanding that this is a discussion forum.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
Hey "even I" can make a mistake with tone (that was a joke, by the way)![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
