posted
I'd guess Bush, but it's not certain. It's a year during which there is a Friday the 13th in June.
Aren't you the same guy who posted:
quote:I just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point. One of the few things that helped me brush that assault towards my beliefs was my respect for Donald Mustard as well as towards you, although it seems we have strong differences on political and religious views.
Your sentiment and Malek's are the same. Both are having a defensive revulsion against an opponent who disrespects what they hold sacred.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assumed it was one of those Faceless Presidents that authors use so often...
I just finished reading the posted chapters, and I really want to read the rest of the book now. (Darn it, Card, you're making me read political thriller novels! Bad enough I read a modern-day fairy fantasy because of you.) I can hardly wait for it to come out so I can see how it all turns out.
My $.02: I was somewhat uncomfortable reading the vitriol about the Faceless Liberal College Students, but I was able to get past it by: knowing that I would probably dislike those students myself if I got to know them well enough to find out that they were really that close-minded, knowing that it was a fictional character and even though the views expressed were similar to the author's it doesn't mean that the more distasteful expressions of it were the author's and not the character's, being hooked by the book anyway, because I know that the author is a good author and turns out good books, and knowing that it wasn't me he was talking about. (Or believing that it wasn't me he was talking about, anyway with such fervency that it feels like truth.)
But I think that Icec0o1 has a valid point in that readers might feel alienated by the expression of Malek's point of view in such a way so early on in the book--and if Icec0o1, who had all the defenses I did, felt offended enough that the browser window was almost closed, readers who don't know OSC's views and particular ethics of expressing those views through characters (this is about the first time that he gave a likeable, intelligent main character his own views intentionally, and with all that he's written I don't think it's for propaganda purposes that this character happens to share his worldview to some degree) might decide not to buy the book because of it.
And, for the record, I think that it's valid to say that a book's sales might be hurt by having a homosexual main character, even though it might have been meant as bigotry. (If it's a fact, it doesn't matter what the ideology behind it is, right? As long as it's true.) The questions are: will it hurt sales significantly, and in such a way as to balance out the increase in sales from people who will actively buy a book with a homosexual main character that they wouldn't have bought otherwise? and does the author actually care that he gets less sales enough to change it?
It's the same thing here: some readers won't buy it after reading those parts in chapter two, some readers will be more likely to buy it, and maybe OSC doesn't care about book sales enough even if it would be a significant problem to change it. I think that toning down those parts (even by dividing up the character's thought/narration clearer, or giving exceptions or faces to the students) would be a small enough tweak to make it worth the extra readers, but then I'm not the author, and ultimately it's his call. But then when asked-for criticism, meant in a constructive way, does come through, deciding that it means that Icec0o1 is close-minded and can't stand any expression of any opposing worldviews (note that Icec0o1 didn't close the browser window, and enjoyed the chapters posted other than that part) is a little...over-the-top, in my opinion. Because I think the goal of the post was really just to share Icec0o1's reading experience as a sample of the potential reading population so that an informed choice of whether or not to change the language there can be made, not to offend anyone or to accuse Malek or his creator of bigotry or close-mindedness or hating "those damn blue-staters." (Speaking of which, that's one part where I wasn't made uncomfortable at all by the expression, because it was immediately made clear that he was referring only to those people who painted a moderate president as extremist despite the evidence. There's a difference between "all the liberal students at the university were bigoted and close-minded and ignorant and that's why I don't like them and I don't think I'm anything like them" and "I don't like people who are bigoted and close-minded and ignorant who happen to be liberal", I guess.)
Your collective pardon for the long post; my thoughts aren't worth much so I have to put a lot of them down in order to add up to two cents' worth. Heck, even my friends and family will only give me a penny for my thoughts most days. ;^)
Edit to respond to pooka:
quote:I just want to say that the incredibly self-conceited tone which you attributed to Reuben Malek as he went on to explain his disgust towards the liberal left in the beginning of the second chapter was really close to killing my interest in the series. I was very close to closing my browser and ceasing to read at that point. One of the few things that helped me brush that assault towards my beliefs was my respect for Donald Mustard as well as towards you, although it seems we have strong differences on political and religious views.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think that this evidences an instinctive revulsion to someone expressing an opposing viewpoint. I think that this evidences an instinctive revulsion to someone expressing any viewpoint in a way that paints so many people with such a broad brush and in such an ugly color. An instinctive revulsion, may I point out, that Icec0o1 managed to get over (hence the "almost" closed the browser window, as opposed to "and I stopped reading right there") to go on to enjoy the first five chapters of this book. The point wasn't "OMG, OSC wrote a book with a sympathetic character who doesn't agree with liberals!", it was "Wow, OSC wrote a book with a section that contains pretty offensive language when talking about liberal college students by having one sympathetic character calling them all close-minded and ignorant, and showed them all to be close-minded and ignorant through that character's eyes ["show, don't tell" makes sense here: it might work better to show examples of closemindedness from the students than to tell us that they were all close-minded] so that in order to believe that the sympathetic character had a case in disliking his fellow students we had to believe that he was a completely reliable, fairly objective evaluator of his fellow students, including his evaluation that there were no exceptions; and maybe OSC should consider revising that part to avoid losing readers before they can get into the story and enjoy it in spite of that part." Which is, I think, a completely different kettle of fish and should be faced in a different way.
And going back a little in the thread because I just thought of this: when Mr. Card said that it's a good thing that Icec0o1 is just like Malek in that they both get to know someone whose views they disagree with--well, I've already gone into how Icec0o1 never expressed disagreement with Malek's views, but in addition, Icec0o1 did go on to get to know Malek by continuing to read, whereas Malek might in fact be someone who does make a point to get to know someone he disagrees with (it seems in character), but in the chapters posted I can't, offhand, think of anyone he got to know even though they held a different viewpoint than he did out of that virtue. He didn't get to know the students well enough to give a name or a face or even anything happening from "one student" instead of from all the students as a group (except for "one of the wittier students" saying something, I think), and he only put up with Torrent because he had to. So...if it's to be a contest between Icec0o1 and Malek on who's more tolerant, well...but maybe I'm misreading everything. Maybe OSC didn't mean to sound sarcastic, and maybe Malek did get to know someone better despite their viewpoints for a reason other than orders (in the five chapters I've gotten to read), and maybe Icec0o1 really did hate Malek for no other reason than that they held different views. Maybe I'm just aggravating the situation by defending someone's viewpoint that the someone doesn't want defended. (I'm not defending Icec0o1, I'm defending Icec0o1's position; ideas vs. people, remember?) Maybe I should go now...
posted
But the whole point of the book is that people feel strongly enough about these viewpoints to justify a war. It's not a book about the measured discussion of ideas. It's a book about the consequences of acting on the level of discourse that has been going on for several years.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But isn't Malek supposed to be the moderate, let's-not-go-to-war guy? I mean, I think he's supposed to change so maybe his utter contempt for university-attending liberal students is laying the seeds for him to go from (paraphrased) "I'd be on the side of whichever side wouldn't fight" to "kill...kill...kill" but I thought he was at least originally supposed to be a measured-discourse kind of guy. Isn't that why he hated them, anyway? I don't know...I like him, but it's harder than maybe it needs to be with the chapter two rant. At first the Watsonian (within-the-story) explanation made as much sense as the Doylist (author-based) explanation, but with extra thought about the sort of character Malek is supposed to be, plus OSC's replies to the criticism Icec0o1 offered, I'm not quite so certain anymore. But I am eager to be proven wrong...I wouldn't like to think that one of my favorite authors is as susceptible to emotional defensive ad hominem attacks as I am; then I'd have to think of him as a mere mortal! Please come on here and show me that this:
quote:Icec0o1 - I'm glad to see that unlike Reuben Malek, you are open-minded and nonjudgmental, and that you are able to accept the idea that other people might disagree with you and still be worth knowing. Oh, wait - it's Malek who gets to know people who disagree with him ...
actually has some rational purpose in the argument and isn't just a spleen-vent....
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:"But in class after class, seminar after seminar, he learned that far too many students were determined to remain ignorant of any real-world data that didn't fit their preconceived notions. And even those who tried to remain genuinely open-minded simply did not realize the magnitude of the lies they had been told about history, about values, about religion, about everything ... Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? That's what he kept asking himself. But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not."
Yep, it's definitive now. People who don't agree with him are determined to remain ignorant and he's completely right. What an open-minded person he is.
Though you've dropped out of the thread, I thought I'd put this out there: I don't think that's what OSC is saying; part of his point might be obscured in the rationalization Malek uses to conclude that he is not a bigot:
quote:"He faced every piece of information as it came. He questioned his own assumptions whenever the information seemed to violate it. Above all, he changed his mind -- and often."
By this point we know that Malek has been at Princeton for a couple of semesters already. It's likely that he questioned some of his assumptions while he was there because he is a conservative student in a rather liberal environment and every single day he is being presented with ideas that disagree with his own.
By contrast most of the other students that OSC mentions in this text are as politically liberal as the faculty. As a result, certain (romanticized?) ideals regarding the university experience -- open-minded discussion, sharing of ideas, and a subsequent change in assumptions -- is not happening for these students, because they are in agreement over which side of the political spectrum is "correct."
This is not to say that Reuben Malek -- or the other students -- did not question his opinions before they got to Princeton. Everyone does from time to time, but I don't think that a left-leaning college is the best place for a liberal to go to discuss his or her ideals, in the same way a conservative would not be best served in this way in a right-leaning environment. I wouldn't expect unbiased opinions on homework and recess from a group of third-graders, because while there might some disagreement within the group, their discussions cannot be considered representative of the debate in the population at large.
quote:The point wasn't "OMG, OSC wrote a book with a sympathetic character who doesn't agree with liberals!", it was "Wow, OSC wrote a book with a section that contains pretty offensive language when talking about liberal college students by having one sympathetic character calling them all close-minded and ignorant, and showed them all to be close-minded and ignorant through that character's eyes ["show, don't tell" makes sense here: it might work better to show examples of closemindedness from the students than to tell us that they were all close-minded] so that in order to believe that the sympathetic character had a case in disliking his fellow students we had to believe that he was a completely reliable, fairly objective evaluator of his fellow students, including his evaluation that there were no exceptions; and maybe OSC should consider revising that part to avoid losing readers before they can get into the story and enjoy it in spite of that part." Which is, I think, a completely different kettle of fish and should be faced in a different way.
I agree with you here.
but
At the same time, while "show-don't-tell" generally works, I think it might make the precieved problem even worse, because the people Reuben refers to see themselves as open-minded. Assuming such people exist, the reader thinks one of three things: (a) "That's close-minded," (b) "That's a poor representation of a liberal belief, why didn't the student argue X," or (c) "Why is that a close-minded point of view?" It's a lot more slippery than using show-don't-tell when trying to show that a character is intelligent, or funny, or inquisitive, or whatever because there are people who embrace these opnions and the point will be lost on anyone who reacts with (B) or (C). Then it sounds really preachy, because everybody needs to think (A).
More space would have to be devoted to illustration the close-mindedness of the students, but the result might be a book spends an undue amount of time at Princeton, while plot supposedly takes place in the outside world. I don't think there's an easy way to handle it.
posted
I've given this some thought, and I've realized that the problem I've got with this can be represented by a Venn diagram.
OSC's -- and Malek's -- "team" can be loosely defined as "people who take the time to hold correct opinions, even if it requires them to change their minds." Let's call them the "Open-Minded."
By contrast, the enemy that Malek -- and OSC -- demonizes is the one that cares so deeply about its preconcieved notions that it'll start a war rather than risk discussion, the one that refuses to even consider an opposing point of view. Let's call them the "Close-Minded." Every throwaway insult in the book is directed at this group.
But there's another axis here, operating in the background of the conversation: so-called "liberals" vs. so-called "conservatives." Lots of readers will believe themselves to be in one camp or the other. Certainly, given my personal politics, I'm "liberal" on most social issues from where OSC is standing (just as an example; I don't normally consider myself a "liberal," but believe he'd probably consider me one.)
And when you draw a quick Venn diagram of the characters (both the main characters and the quick sketches), what you discover is that pretty much all the "liberals" fall into the "Close-Minded" circle, and none of the "conservatives" do. (Of course, the "conservatives" here are actually presented as "moderates," but YMMV; I don't consider this particular axis all that useful, and am just using it as shorthand.)
So if you self-identify (or, as in my case, believe OSC would identify you) as a "liberal," the message you're going to pick up on is "all liberals are Close-Minded, and therefore by definition our Antagonists." There may well be close-minded conservatives out there in the fictional world of the novel. We don't see any, but we're free to imagine that they exist.
OSC must be aware of this on some level, given his own defense: that most mainstream fiction presents angelic, open-minded liberals and close-minded conservatives. (I'll point out again that this is not the case for this genre, the political thriller, but will leave it at that.) If this is consciously reactionary, that's fine; the chapters work as slightly inflammatory fiction. If it's meant to reflect OSC's belief that the American left is more of a threat to Open-Minded People than the right, that's also fine -- but he should expect that to dismay those of his readers who disagree with him on that point but otherwise value his opinion.
If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.
I think this is what causes the mental disconnect for a lot of liberal OSC fans. They read one of his criticisms of the Left and think, "Man, I'm not like that at all. I'm one of the Open-Minded People." And maybe they're correct; maybe they are one of the Open-Minded people, and maybe so are most of their friends. And they'll post something along those lines, expressing their concern that they've just been lumped in with the "Enemy" just because -- for example -- they graduated from Princeton, and OSC will reply with something about how they're close-minded and incapable of listening to opposing opinions. Which has the effect of just reiterating, to their face, the broad generalization they were initially posting to refute in the first place. I can see how that'd be more than a little annoying.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ErezL: One thing I had a hard time understanding is the date of story, is it happening right now and the president is Bush? is it next year? ten years
I don't know for sure, but "Daddy Warbucks" does sound like it could be a reference to Cheney.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, Normally I enjoy reading your posts, but on occasion you diverge into your own little world where an argument only exists so that you can continue arguing.
You've read five chapters of an unpublished book, and you've shown the same sort of unflexible (close-minded) one-dimensional behaviour that you're railing against.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. See, I disagree that "inflexible" necessarily means "close-minded."
I would suspect, in fact, that OSC would also refuse to accept that stubborn people are also close-minded people.
It's true that I've read five chapters, and am thus forced to work from an assumption of the text based on what OSC's said in the past, what he's written in the past, and what he's said in this thread. If the rest of the book throws a huge curve-ball and I wind up being completely off-base about it -- if, for example, every other "Close-Minded" antagonist we meet would vote Republican -- I'll gladly take it all back.
If it would make you feel any better, feel free to preface all my posts with "based on what we've seen so far...." I've kind of assumed that was implicit, but maybe not.
-------
quote:Fiction...not real...as in, the timeline is not that important.
I'd disagree. He's clearly meant to be a Bush analogue, since the military's engaged against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the date can't be more than a year or two in the future (if at all), and the president is said to have resurrected the army from a sad state of uselessness. Unless we're going to assume that OSC thinks the army is currently useless, or that the "alternate" history is meant to be a very alternate one rather than a potentially real near future, the sitting president that's killed here is (IMO, at least) designed to stand in for Bush.
If I were writing a work of fiction and mentioned "the wrinkled, idiotic old prune who ran the White House a couple decades ago," it would not be unfair to assume that I meant Reagan.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thread, but I think people are jumping the gun a bit here. Let's remember, we've only read the first few pages of the book. I expect a LOT of subsequent character & plot development.
Edit: Oops, I'm slow, this just got pointed out and responded to.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget: Tom, Normally I enjoy reading your posts, but on occasion you diverge into your own little world where an argument only exists so that you can continue arguing.
You've read five chapters of an unpublished book, and you've shown the same sort of unflexible (close-minded) one-dimensional behaviour that you're railing against.
Unless you quote and explain why you think he's being close-minded, this post is nothing but a driveby snide remark that pointlessly inflames people. Don't be disrespectful.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boiled down, the other students and faculty are described as closed minded liberals. The intent, I believe, was to dismiss them because they were closed-minded. Some here have expressed concern that they were instead being dismissed because they were liberals.
I'm still in chapter three so I can't speak coherently about the rest (or, obviously, the rest of the book), but this might have been softened by a single mention of inflexible neocons Malek may have encounted in the service or elsewhere whom he also discounted for closed-mindedness. Although he does mention the need for a soldier to encounter stupidity with a straight face...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Unless you quote and explain why you think he's being close-minded, this post is nothing but a driveby snide remark that pointlessly inflames people. Don't be disrespectful.
Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames. Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Slice your palm across and down, Cruciform to prove your worth, Place your faith in cardboard crown, Swear to overrun the Earth.
We've got a club Not the Boys' or Cubs' It's our very own Club Believe it, bub.
The first rule we make, Our most sacred number one, Higher than our own souls' sake... No girls, 'cause they're not fun
We've got a club Not the Boys' or Cubs' It's our very own Club Believe it, bub.
Our oaths are mighty, blood-sworn true; Our sticks and stones make meat of you! Pirate Brotherhood of Treehouse Hill, There are lots...LOTS of idiots to kill.
We've got a club Not the Boys' or Cubs' It's our very own Club Believe it, bub.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's true that I've read five chapters, and am thus forced to work from an assumption
No, Tom. You aren't. You have the option to delay judgement entirely. It's only because you choose to judge the entire work already based on what little you've seen of it that you feel "forced" to work from such assumptions.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If I were writing a work of fiction and mentioned "the wrinkled, idiotic old prune who ran the White House a couple decades ago," it would not be unfair to assume that I meant Reagan.
See, now, I would have assumed you were talking about the peanut farmer (and "nukyular engineer"; funny how he never got made fun of for his pronunciation of that word).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure he did. He was made fun of for his accent, his grin, his brother, his attack from a rabbit, and his policies.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At the same time, while "show-don't-tell" generally works, I think it might make the precieved problem even worse, because the people Reuben refers to see themselves as open-minded. Assuming such people exist, the reader thinks one of three things: (a) "That's close-minded," (b) "That's a poor representation of a liberal belief, why didn't the student argue X," or (c) "Why is that a close-minded point of view?" It's a lot more slippery than using show-don't-tell when trying to show that a character is intelligent, or funny, or inquisitive, or whatever because there are people who embrace these opnions and the point will be lost on anyone who reacts with (B) or (C). Then it sounds really preachy, because everybody needs to think (A).
More space would have to be devoted to illustration the close-mindedness of the students, but the result might be a book spends an undue amount of time at Princeton, while plot supposedly takes place in the outside world. I don't think there's an easy way to handle it.
Good point. I don't know. Then again, I'm not a writer, let alone a Hugo/Nebula-winning one. Mr. Card has done things I never would have guessed possible with his craft, so maybe he could do this too?
I think you have a good point with the liberal-conservative/closeminded-openminded split, Tom, Chris. And I just tried to write something that coherently agreed with you guys but I couldn't say it better than:
quote:If this is consciously reactionary, that's fine; the chapters work as slightly inflammatory fiction. If it's meant to reflect OSC's belief that the American left is more of a threat to Open-Minded People than the right, that's also fine -- but he should expect that to dismay those of his readers who disagree with him on that point but otherwise value his opinion.
If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.
And for the record, I didn't think, when I was reading it, that Malek was dismissing the close-minded liberals he knew because of their liberalism, but that was mostly because I'd heard OSC express a similar viewpoint in regards to university-going liberal students and so I was able to make the connection that Malek, Whom We Are Supposed To Like, had the same qualifiers (it's the bigotry, the closemindedness, not the politics) that Orson Scott Card, Whom I Do Like, has always had. My concern is that other people won't have the same background, and will take it to be a blanket condemnation in rather strong language and won't buy the book.
I've been reading World Watch and Uncle Orson Reviews Everything for a while (and read the old articles and essays too) and if I wanted to up and decide I didn't like someone based on his politics, I'd have dumped him by now. But it's not the politics: it's the arguments, the evidence, the other point of view that I couldn't really get anywhere else; and the really good writing, of course, from military space fiction to near-future political thrillers to reviews of toilet paper. And if I'd decided I didn't like OSC or his writing, I wouldn't be concerned about Empire's sales at all, would I be?
quote:
quote:Unless you quote and explain why you think he's being close-minded, this post is nothing but a driveby snide remark that pointlessly inflames people. Don't be disrespectful.
Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames.
Spoken like someone with no intention of fanning the flames...and reiterate indefinitely.
We want a civil discussion, not a flame war, and Tom wasn't being close-minded, nor particularly inflexible (don't you have to be argued against in order to be able to refuse to acknowledge the argument?), and of course he's only read five chapters of this unpublished book. The same goes for everyone in this thread, except for Mr. Card. What are we supposed to be using as evidence for our discussion of these five chapters of this unpublished book?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, finished chapter five. Which leaves me with two thoughts.
First, I have to see where this goes. Soon.
Second, the description of the men's actions, reactions, and dialogue in chapter five didn't work for me. I understand that in that situation, with men trained for such events, that this may be exactly how they may act and speak. But because I am not similarly trained, it reads to me as unrealistic and that's not something I expect from an OSC book. I am also not a seven year old military genius, a Russian witch, or a Maker, but I have no problem empathizing with those characters at all. Not so, here.
I accept that they cannot afford to acknowledge the enormity, the wracking emotion behind the events they've just witnessed, not and still be effective. But there is also no mention of the effort that takes, or that it will ever affect them. There's nothing for me as the non-military reader to latch onto. They may as well be talking about the bombing of a Starbucks, aside from Malek's anger at being betrayed and used. And since the strength of OSC's work has always been, to me, his amazing ability to make me deeply care about a wide range of people and the choices they make, this seemed oddly flat.
Possibly because of that, I'm not really "in" the story at that point and so the conversation between the two men afterwards reads like two World Watch columns talking to each other. These men think alike, and would probably quickly realize they think alike. At this time, in this situation, I would expect terse comments made with the assumption that the other person would understand, even if the reader has to think about it. Didn't OSC once say in one of his Writer Lessons that you should try trimming out alternate lines of dialogue to make a conversation sound more realistic?
Instead Malek and Cole provide complete and thought-out statements that sound more like quotes than dialogue. It doesn't feel to me like they're talking to each other. It feels like the author is talking through both of them to me, and that pushes me farther out of the book.
Please note that this doesn't address the content of what they're saying. Doesn't matter. When a book starts preaching, regardless of the message, it loses me. I'm a huge Heinlein fan but his later books pushed me away too, for the same reason.
It may be that this is simply the style. I don't read many thrillers, and it does seem as if this has less description, less inner process than his previous works, but this was my first-read impression.
[ August 14, 2006, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be willing to bet that later in the book there is some equally scathing criticism of redneck America as well, offered by Malek.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I have NOT fully read through this thread yet, and will continue in a moment. However, I have a few comments I don't want to lose in the process, and need to voice them, before my ADD mind erases them.
1.) This book already has a place on my bookshelves, despite the fact that some of the overall feel of it disturbs me...more on that later.
2.) If you are going to read a book that is intended for entertainment purposes, you either need to turn off your sensitivity, political, religious, racial, societal,etc. tenderness, or, just not read the book. Personally, and please don't be offended, I think it ridiculous that so many people limit themselves by calling themselves Liberal, Conservative, Right-Wing, Left-wing, Democrat, Republican, etc. I refuse to let someone else's ideas and values define who I am. I can think for myself, and I prefer to build, demolish, and rebuild my own thoughts and opinions. I am not a member of any political party. I am not to be defined by any of my affiliations, except one. I am an American. And if you ask me, that is the way we ALL should be.
3.) To Mr. Card (whom, by the way, is one of my favorites), Please don't take this as anything other than a simple observation, but there has been a recurring theme in a lot of your works that speaks of how horrible America is. There has been a sense of hopelessness and fear that makes me uncomfortable. (That has NEVER stopped me from reading anything unless it rang through as truly offensive, which nothing of yours has) I guess this really has nothing to do with anything needing to be changed in your stories, it's more of a personal gripe. That sense of corruption and powerlessness that accompanies the themes of governmental corruption and plots within plots within plots, only feeds the paraniod views we have forced down our throats by politicans and the news and college professors on a daily basis. Don't be offended. I REALLY want to finish this book, ASAP. I am just tired of the constant reminder of how corrupt and blind the leaders of our country are. I have children, and it terrifies me needlessly. In the end, I think that all we can do boils down to whether or not we consider ourselves Americans, and what our definition of an American is. I believe in America the way our forefathers did. A land of freedom and opportunity; the one place on earth where we can tryly exercise our right to free agency.
I don't care what the press wants me to think, I don't care what popular sentiment is. I AM AN AMERICAN, and fighting for my country and my freedom is what I will do, if and when it becomes necessary.
ok...I'll quit griping and preaching. I really hope this didn't offend anyone, but I thought it needed to be said.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Cecily aka Narnia -- I thought of you when I first read through the posted chapters, too . . . *grin*
Thanks, Mr. Card, for posting the work and welcoming comment!
I zipped through the five chapters a couple of days ago, and was both interested in the remaining story and puzzled/disturbed by some facet or t'other in the writing.
I just re-read chapters 1 and 2. Here are my reactions,as a reader, to the story as it is at this point. Beyond the reaction of wanting the rest of the story, of course, which in the long run is the telling point, no?
There's something about chapter 1 that just doesn't work for me -- perhaps it's merely the placement in the story. Perhaps it's the continual emphasis on "the Americans" . . . I dunno. I'll continue to ponder.
I think part of it does harken back to a sense of "flatness" in the first chapter. And a truly almost overwhelming sense of being preached at about "valiant soldiers, sacrifice, the great americans, etc."
I really think I'd prefer chapter 2 as the opening -- perhaps interspersed with one or two memory flshbacks.
I can see Malek being human enough to tune out during some professorial-student interchange and muse on how he wound up sitting in Princeton in the first place . . . and comparing the horrors of actual war to the horrors of seminars filled with yes-men . . .
posted
ok, STILL not through with the thread (still need to read page three), but daguum, people, it's a work of FICTION, intended for ENTERTAINMENT. To quote Mystery Science Theater "Just repeat to yourself, "it's just a show. I should really just relax."
I can sort of see how someone that considers themselves liberal would have taken chapter two offensively, but once again, it's a story, and even though there ARE people that think like the main character, and there ARE people that are just as awful as HE sees them, it's just a story. Not everyone is like that, and OSC knows that. Perhaps none of you has intended to sound offended, but you are ACTING offended. I honestly felt the need to be defensive, even though the comments were not directed at me. And I am sure, my earlier comments will have offended someone, despite my intentions.
I'm just saying.
And let's not forget. OSC IS the author of this particular story. Anyone would respond to an attack on their work, whether or not an attack was intended. And let's not forget that he has a lot going on all at once, and probably doesn't have the time to sit back and deeply ponder the possible intentions of those that are posting on this forum. My first impression of most of the comments by ice, tom, and a couple of others, has been a somewhat negative one, and I have had the time to really try to read and understand. I've gone back a couple of times, and reread the thread (so far), and honestly, I think it's just because everyone, including OSC is speaking so...articulately? What I mean to say is that y'all is usin' such high falutin' words it's not too hord to feel like a bumpkin', and that just don't make ANYONE feel none too good.
(yeah, it was over the top, but I hope you get the idea.)
I understand that there is terminology that better expresses ideas, thoughts, and whatnot, but it DOES tend to put others on the defensive.
So THERE! =P
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
It seems like y'all are trying to make him change his story to something that YOU like and agree with. Now if he were to do that, it would cease to be HIS story. You can either read the book or not, it's up to you. However you would not change something YOU wrote or made to please someone else, so why should HE?
Perhaps I'm a bit biased as an aspiring author with a story that has been poked at and called "stereotypical." Perhaps it IS, but dagnabbit, it's MY story, and I'll tell it as I want to. Now if there are points that are not interpreted the way I intended them to be, then I will fix it, but I'm not about to change the story or the characters because someone reading it disagrees with what I choose to have MY charaters do.
And now I'll shut up! LOL
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icec0o1, I believe that you are misinterpeting the following quote:
quote:Originally posted by Icec0o1: "... Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? That's what he kept asking himself. But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not.
Yep, it's definitive now. People who don't agree with him are determined to remain ignorant and he's completely right. What an open-minded person he is. "
And as for view that you posted made it sound like you are not really open-minded, though you may very well be. when the book is finally published and you have had a chance to see that caracter devolepe further you will understand that particular point of view the character is expressing.
I do not want attack you but rather help you, i do belive that what you say has calidity to is as well as what Mr. Card said about what you said about what he wrote as the charaters opinion of the world that character sees. I write from time to time and i do belive that you sometimes have to have a character express a particular point of view even if you despise that particular point of view, thats what make the charater work and you cannot abandon that point of view because you do not agree with it. Hope this helps you clear a few things up.
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A question: I got confused somewhere in there about who actually pulled off the attack. It's supposed to be ACTUAL terrorists, who were fed information by a White House leak, who got the information from Malek when he created it, who then set up the attack, and it was supposed to look like the American army who did it?
Didn't Malek say that he only wrote the report three weeks ago? I guess I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that Al Qaeda or one of its brethren could put that entire operation together, and get all the pieces in place, even if they got the report that same day, all within three weeks. I suppose it's a moot point, but it strikes me as rather fast. But hey, we've seen before that terrorist organizations are actually smarter and more complex than we've really given them credit for, so why not?(/spoiler)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Some comments on the story -
(spoiler)Actually, a question first of all. I got confused somewhere in there about who actually pulled off the attack. It's supposed to be ACTUAL terrorists, who were fed information by a White House leak, who got the information from Malek when he created it, who then set up the attack, and it was supposed to look like the American army who did it?
No, I think it's an actual coup. The gun in the first act is all the talk about the possibility of a civil war, resulting in an empire. I think that's what we saw. Now... whether it was left-wingers or right-wingers or some other wingers that we haven't been paying enough attention to with all the left/right drama... that remains to be seen.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I accept that they cannot afford to acknowledge the enormity, the wracking emotion behind the events they've just witnessed, not and still be effective.
Malek's anxiety and emotion was displayed through the conversation with his wife. The action that follows is a resolution to that (I mean, how awful would it be if we were left hanging at the end of Chapter 3?) Malek's actions mark his urgency to keep afloat in a manner that will allow him to dig deeper and hopefully discover the truth. He knows the president is dead, but he doesn't know who did it or why. Remember the month after 9/11 when we didn't know these questions about the attacks? There were some Arabic materials found at the airports that suggested someone in that region, but the story did not come together immediately.
The people Malek reports to at the Pentagon were in some manner infiltrated (going back to Lyrhawns "how did the terrorists do this" question) so he can't go to his superiors. Terrorists did not intercept the plans afterward. They were hired by the same people who asked for the plans in the first place. (I think this is adequately established in the text, but maybe I'm paranoid.) We don't even know if the terrorists are any kind of foreign right now, and Malek and Cole didn't hang around to find out (I think this could be remarked on in the text better).
Now, maybe I understand things knowing military people, but I doubt that's it. Semi-familiarity with DC actually confused me at one point (because the geography of DC is deliberately convoluted). I don't know officers and I don't know the Army that well. I'll go so far as to say OSC does not have first hand military experience either, though he reads a lot. I believe part of the inspiration for Ender's Game was that his cousin was in the Army while still a kid.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were editing this story, I would suggest that the time in New Jersey be condensed into about two paragraphs for now. By knowing ahead of time about the whole discussion of Empire, the reader pretty much knows what's happening. In this genre, you've got to keep the reader in as much suspense as possible for as long as possible. I might start dropping hints about the professor's ideas on the walk across the bridge, but only start letting out breadcrumbs a little at a time. IMESHO.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the stuff at Princeton was heady, but a great foundation for what might come later. I also thinks it would be way out of place to try and do it as a flashback, or a throwback during the bridge scene. Cutting it down, especially that much, would be a mistake, and I think would really, really ruin the flow of the story. A lot of Malek's character up to that point is established in the Princeton scenes.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like y'all are trying to make him change his story to something that YOU like and agree with. Now if he were to do that, it would cease to be HIS story. You can either read the book or not, it's up to you. However you would not change something YOU wrote or made to please someone else, so why should HE?
But that's not what I am (or anyone else offering criticism is, if I understand them right) trying to do. We've all mentioned that we want to keep reading the book, after all. The point is that some readers might get unnecessarily turned off by the strong language in Chapter Two, and that he should know that so that when he goes to decide whether or not he wants to revise that section he'll have that information and be able to make a better decision.
I got the impression that the posting was something like when someone shows a draft of a story to their friends: What do you think? What should I change? What parts do you like? Do you think it's realistic or believable? Do you like the characters I want you to like? et cetera, not Here it is, tell me how much you like it and if you don't like parts shut up and go away. He's asking for advice, we're giving it, he chooses to change it or not, no hurt feelings--ideally.
quote:If you are going to read a book that is intended for entertainment purposes, you either need to turn off your sensitivity, political, religious, racial, societal,etc. tenderness, or, just not read the book. Personally, and please don't be offended, I think it ridiculous that so many people limit themselves by calling themselves Liberal, Conservative, Right-Wing, Left-wing, Democrat, Republican, etc.
The book is written for entertainment purposes. It's not meant to sound like ranting or propaganda or a World Watch essay. It's a story, and a good one, so far. So when Mr. Card writes a section that comes off more like a World Watch essay and it seems like it's coming from both the character and the author, and we're concerned that he may end up losing readers because of the tone (regardless of who is being vilified, liberals, conservatives, invisible pink unicorns), especially since we're pretty sure that his intent was not to offend readers, we're going to call him on it. And if it turns out he did want to offend readers a little--shake 'em up, make them think, even if it loses him sales to people scanning the first couple of chapters in bookstores--fine, no problem, whatever. And you don't have to be part of the group being attacked to be offended by the attack. I get just as irritated when I'm reading David Brin go off on the evil conservative conspiracies to take over government as I do when I'm reading Orson Scott Card go off on the liberal intellectual conspiracies to take over universities. I suspend offense because a) the places where they write these things are the proper forums to do so, b) there might be an element of truth to either or both of these accusations (being neither in government nor a university, I'm not really all that informed), c) if I didn't want to read it I could just go away and I wouldn't be missing anything else (like a good story, for instance), and d) I know that they intend to say the things that they are going to say in the way that they're saying them, in these places. If I picked up Kiln People tomorrow and it suddenly had descriptions of evil conservatives taking over the government--and in a way that gave off more "all conservatives are evil" vibes than "conservatives trying to take over government are evil, and so are liberals who try to do the same thing, but only conservatives do it" I would probably get irritated; and if David Brin asked my opinion on the book I'd probably tell him that the language was unnecessarily generalizing and gave off the wrong impression and that he might lose readers because of it.
I wouldn't be able to "turn off" my religious/ethnic sensitivity reading a book with a gratuitous description of The Typical Money-grubbing, Cheating Jew. I'd probably just not read the book, but it's harder for me to do that with a book by Mr. Card because I know he's a good writer, I know the book will be good in spite of it, and I think that he didn't mean to sound like he was vilifying all university-attending liberals (why would he do that? he's half liberal himself, and he teaches at a university!). I think that he's trying to show that his conservative main character is intelligent, open-minded, and well-informed, with his heart in the right place and even with the guts to ask himself honestly if he was bigoted; and that such a character would have a hard time at Princeton because a lot of people would be close-minded, ignorant, and sometimes just plain stupid. But someone who is not familiar with Mr. Card's works and opinions might very well end up with the impression that the story is just looking for an excuse to talk badly about liberals and might not buy the book because of it. And if that's his intent, I'm fine with that; but I don't think that it is, and the "well you're only offended by that because you're a liberal" defenses are convincing me more and more that the offense was not the point of that passage.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gwen: I wouldn't be able to "turn off" my religious/ethnic sensitivity reading a book with a gratuitous description of The Typical Money-grubbing, Cheating Jew.
Have you ever read the Lord Conrad books? Leo Frankowski is a sexist, homophobic, antisemite. In one of the Conrad books, he claims that Jews call gentiles goyim (true), which means "cattle" (idiotically untrue). It's a common anti-semitic libel.
But I enjoyed the books despite his sexism and anti-semitism (the homophobia crops up in a different book of his, which sucked for other reasons).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Some random thoughts about the book, the thread, and the author:
-- It doesn't look like anyone stopped reading before hitting the end of the fifth chapter, so apparently Mr. Card has once again succeeded in hooking a diverse audience. I'll buy Empire on release day.
-- With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them. As others have pointed out, this is a work of fiction, not a deliberate smear on anyone. Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment. Gross overreaction is the hallmark of the closed-minded.
-- There is something odd about the excerpt, though. Mr. Card is an excellent storyteller, and well-versed in the nuances of his art, so there may be a vital clue to the identity of the conspirators already revealed. (Although my study is more in the area of screenwriting, I'm assuming that novel writing follows similar rules and guidelines.) The general rule of thumb for movie scripts is that the writer can really only get away with three plot-furthering coincidences/dei ex machina/miracles before the audience breaks their suspension of disbelief entirely. In the excerpt, the timing of the attack is so miraculously coincidental as to qualify as the first miracle--in fact, the characters comment on the very thing. Now, since Mr. Card is definitely not a hack, it's a safe assumption that he not only knew he put a big hit on reader-disbelief with it, he punctuated it with character commentary for the later recollection of the reader. In other words, there was more going on with the timing of the attack than just a cheap shortcut to get the action rolling. The immediate conclusion that leapt to my mind is that, due to the way the point-of-view shifts primarily to Bart Cole's at that point of the book, Malek is not the victim of coincidence. Malek chose Cole as his aide, undoubtedly knew of his sailing/water experience beforehand, and chose the time and location for their meeting--right at the time of the attack. So, unless it really is just a cheap way to get the action started, (which I highly doubt,) there's a good chance that Malek is in on the plot and needs Cole to think otherwise for reasons yet unexplained.
Or, I could be wrong. Guess we'll have to wait until November.
posted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, clearly he was at least involuntarily part of the plot, but if this is deliberate and he's been lying to Cole, then that would make the book REALLY interesting.
---------------------------------------------
I've got a feeling that the conspirators, instead of trying to destroy America, are actually trying to create the empire that Torrent talks about, with Malek as emperor! That would explain why they made him a player in the drama by using his plans and making sure he was there when they attacked, and also why the sniper deliberately missed them both. And if anyone would be the perfect Augustus, it would be Malek...the man is an essentially flawless citizen, almost a superman of sorts.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I got the impression that the posting was something like when someone shows a draft of a story to their friends: What do you think? What should I change? What parts do you like? Do you think it's realistic or believable? Do you like the characters I want you to like? et cetera, not Here it is, tell me how much you like it and if you don't like parts shut up and go away. He's asking for advice, we're giving it, he chooses to change it or not, no hurt feelings--ideally.
Hmm, this is not at all what I thought the intention was. I was under the impression that Card put these 5 chapters up on his site because he knows how much his fans fiend for his new books. He knows we want to read it and we've been griping for months about when his next book is going to come out, so as soon as he finishes his semi-final draft he posts the first quarter on his website.
So, yeah, I've never been of the position that Card puts out portions of his novels before they are released because he is unsure of the quality and wants to check with us to make sure it's good and we'll like it. I always assumed, and still assume, that he put them here because he is a nice guy that cares about his fans and wanted to give us a little something so we'd quit our bitching for a while.
And apparently that worked out perfectly.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I make my (hopefully constructive) criticism, let me say that I think the 5 chapters were pretty good.
But I found myself skimming through sections starting with Chapter 3. I was hoping we'd learn a lot more about the ideas of the two sides in the upcoming civil war before the fighting would start. Then we'd be able to see how those ideas are reflected in the tactics used and discover how the ideas aren't exactly what we thought them to be.
I wonder, though, if the idea of civil war in America wouldn't make for a better World Watch column or columns than a novel. I guess I won't know until the novel comes out.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I got that impression, vonk, because of his reaction to other criticisms in this thread (yeah, good point, I'll change that), his reaction to post-publication criticism (what, do you think I'm going to rewrite and republish the book just because you didn't like that part?), and the acknowledgements in other books (thanks to Hatrackers for pointing out X, Y, and Z). Maybe I'm wrong, but then I'd expect him to react the same way to any criticism, rather than just to criticism he disagrees with...
quote:-- With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them. As others have pointed out, this is a work of fiction, not a deliberate smear on anyone. Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment. Gross overreaction is the hallmark of the closed-minded.
And with respect, the only vitriolic outrage I've seen so far was not on the "keep it if you want to, but you might lose readers with the way you phrased chapter two, just thought you'd like to know" side. Stating our reactions to that part in the book for information purposes only, then explaining why it wasn't just a "liberal" problem at all, is not vitriolic outrage. The point is that I don't think it was a deliberate smear on anyone--well, on close-minded people, but not on liberals per se--but it was a smear, and might be taken as deliberate by people who don't know anything about Orson Scott Card. Is that a gross overreaction?
I really don't know how I can possibly make it any clearer: a. I think that Mr. Card's intent in that passage was totally different from what actually happened (elucidating character traits about Malek vs. ticking off potential readers). b. I'm not saying he has to change it just to make me happy. I'm saying that he might want to consider changing it if the effort involved in changing it is outweighed by the potential harms in not changing it--specifically, sales. His choice. c. I'm not liberal. I'm independent. For most issues, I'm still considering my opinion, because I haven't enough information to form an opinion properly and I haven't sat down and thought through the issue thoroughly enough. d. Not that c is relevant. I wouldn't care whom he seemed to be vilifying, if the vilifying is apparently unintentional to the degree and of the people that it is, I'm going to point it out regardless of whether I feel personally attacked. e. I'm getting a bit tired of the "well you're just proving his point that all liberals are close-minded, because you're a liberal and you're being close-minded by not instantly agreeing with our arguments!" for several reasons: 1. I don't think his point was that all liberals are close-minded. If it was in fact his point, I wouldn't even bother trying to clarify my motives for posting my reaction as a reader to that part; I would have just considered it propaganda fiction and I can live with that. As a science fiction reader who enjoys well-written utopia/dystopia books, I'd be interested in branching out to what I would consider alternate-universe books taking place in our time period and in the United States in which all liberals are in fact close-minded. But if it wasn't his intent, then pointing out to him an unintended effect is a good thing. See points a, b above. 2. I'm not a liberal. See point c above. 3. I may in fact be close-minded, since it is a condition which is rather difficult to see in oneself by definition, but I really don't see how my arguments in this thread have evinced closemindedness at all. Or, a bit more objectively (to avoid getting Bean's reaction to Bonzo's "I'm not stupid" claim), how TomDavidson was being one-dimensional, inflexible, and close-minded with his conjecture that the high correlation of liberals and closemindedness, combined with the subsequent dismissal of closemindedness, so far is what makes it seem like an attack on liberals when it is (I think) meant as an attack on close-minded people. Or how Icec0o1 was being close-minded by sharing a reader reaction to that part in an attempt to be helpful. 4. I'll re-read the thread, but my memory so far gives me no arguments from the other side but the ad hominem attacks (and the "you're proving his point by disagreeing" attacks) I dislike so much in a civil discourse.
I'll wait for OSC himself to clarify his intentions in that section. Because if his intent really was to be somewhat inflammatory to get readers to question their assumptions or something like that, then any reaction like "well I was inflamed" is only affirmation. And if it wasn't, but he chooses not to change that section anyway--even if it's because he thinks that all the people who were mildly (or not-so-mildly) offended by that section only were because we're all close-minded liberals--I'll shut up then, too, because my goal was to provide information about my personal reaction to that section (and later to clarify my motives in providing that information), not to launch a Crusade To Take Back Chapter Two For The Liberals or something.
One last note: there have been a significant number of people even in this thread who were mildly-to-severely offended by the apparent anti-liberal slant so far. Not a large sample group, I know, but it still should raise some questions about how readers will react to it once it's officially published in full dead-tree format.
quote:I read OSC posts here and I understand that he doesn't try to make his own opinions come through in the story but even after reading those posts I still can't release myself from that impression, I feel as if I am being lectured to, instead of just observing the hero thoughts and feelings, and that's not a very nice feeling.
quote:That’s what I thought; I didn’t believe Card purposefully wanted to be that strongly offensive. I was hoping that you could look at it from my point of view and see how the words and phrases used could be very insulting to a lot of people.
quote: If his intended point is that both of these poorly-defined "sides," the NASCAR Right and the Ivory Tower Left, are just as full of close-minded bigots as the other, I don't think the chapters provided effectively make that point.
I think this is what causes the mental disconnect for a lot of liberal OSC fans. They read one of his criticisms of the Left and think, "Man, I'm not like that at all. I'm one of the Open-Minded People." And maybe they're correct; maybe they are one of the Open-Minded people, and maybe so are most of their friends. And they'll post something along those lines, expressing their concern that they've just been lumped in with the "Enemy" just because -- for example -- they graduated from Princeton, and OSC will reply with something about how they're close-minded and incapable of listening to opposing opinions. Which has the effect of just reiterating, to their face, the broad generalization they were initially posting to refute in the first place. I can see how that'd be more than a little annoying.
quote:Please note that this doesn't address the content of what they're saying. Doesn't matter. When a book starts preaching, regardless of the message, it loses me. I'm a huge Heinlein fan but his later books pushed me away too, for the same reason.
posted
Gwen: It's a bit of a strawman to claim the supporters of Card's position are condemning the offended over mere disagreement, don't you think? If it is demonstrable that certain colleges and universities have profoundly leftist faculties, then it is hardly an offense to utilize that truth in a work of fiction. Matters of opinion can be debated. Debate over matters of fact should be pointless.
posted
I know that no one on this forum knows or cares who I am but I have just got to say something.
I find the debating going on here based on only 5 chapters of fiction to be silly. It's not even through the first act yet. Any debate at this time would be knee-jerk reaction. I see no point in speculating or analyzing something where less than 5% of it has been presented. And then there is this nitpicking about what the different characters are saying or how they are presented. Would it have made any difference to you if you had never known the political stance of the author? Would it change who, what or how you nitpick?
Posts: 527 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I am bothered that where I should be becoming engrossed in dialogue from an author I know handles it well, I am instead feeling like I'm watching two people in an infomercial agreeing with each other about how great the product is, clearly getting their bullet points out rather than actually talking to each other. Real people don't talk that way, especially when they share some of the same opinions and thus don't have to spell them all out, and the experience is lessened for me because of it. Literary criticism, not political, the only kind I would offer here.
I'm going to reread it tonight, after letting it fade from memory a bit, and see if I still get the same reaction.
[ August 15, 2006, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:With respect, the vitriolic outrage from the supposedly-slighted "liberals" does tend to prove the author's point about them.
How so? I point you to Card's comments. Since he hasn't returned to elaborate on them, can you provide me with some quotes from this thread to back up his points? Where exactly is the close-minded vitriol that's being "proven" here?
quote:Comparing reactions to the last two men to hold the office of President, I know of no "red-stater" who advocated assassinating Clinton, even though he committed perjury, while I have heard "blue-staters" echo the "Bush should be assassinated" idea when he's done nothing even worthy of impeachment.
I find this hysterically funny. Because while I know lots of blue-staters who have wanted Bush impeached, I've never heard one say they wanted him dead. Not only have I heard a number of "red-staters" wish Clinton dead, but we had a red-stater on another of Card's forums say, the night of the last national election, that he'd take to the streets with his rifle to shoot random federal bureaucrats if John Kerry won.
This is not, mind you, a "hey, 'conservatives' are more evil than 'liberals'" point that I'm making.
The point I'm making is, I hope, more subtle and more relevant: that when you claim to only see evil and lack of nuance on one side of an argument, the odds are overwhelming that you yourself have been blinded to nuance by your own bias.
------
quote:I see no point in speculating or analyzing something where less than 5% of it has been presented.
Just a nitpick: are you really expecting this book to be 100 chapters long?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: If it is demonstrable that certain colleges and universities have profoundly leftist faculties, then it is hardly an offense to utilize that truth in a work of fiction.
Considering the fact that few people can even come to a decent definition of "left" and "right" in this country, I'd say this is hardly fact at all and quite a matter of opinion. Which leads to your next point.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Cooky was the original spelling. I personally detest the movement toward taking the plural form and back-forming a new singular from it. Hence I'm campaigning for cooky instead of cookie. Though I confess to inconsistency, since flunky sounds like an adjective (he had a flunky semester) and flunkie appears to be the noun. Anyway, because you saw cooky in my manuscript, you are that much more aware of it as a possible spelling. And NOW you're aware of it as the older spelling.
An appealing reason; unfortunately, it's completely wrong. Looking at the entries in the OED leaves no question that "cookie" is the earliest attested form, and the dominant one thereafter. (It appears to have been derived from the Dutch "koekje"; there's evidence for this derivation in the U.S., but not necessarily for Scotland.)
quote:c1730 BURT Lett. N. Scot. (1760) II. xxiv. 272 In the Low-Country the Cakes are called Cookies. 1808 W. IRVING Salmag. (1824) 368 Those notable cakes, hight new-year cookies. 1816 SCOTT Antiq. xv, Muckle obliged to ye for your cookies, Mrs. Shortcake. 1852 D. G. MITCHELL Dream Life 97 Very dry cookies, spiced with caraway seeds. 1852 BARTER Dorp & Veld 107 Cookies, or unleavened cakes of coarse meal, baked on the grid-iron. 1870 B. HARTE Luck Roar. Camp 227 (Farmer) He lost every hoof and hide, I'll bet a cookey! 1897 E. GLANVILLE Tales from Veld 51 Raking the ‘cookie’ from the fire-place, whence it came baking hot. 1935 M. DE LA ROCHE Young Renny xxiv. 214 Mary was arranging plates of bread and butter, thick ginger cookies,..and a bowl of halved peaches. 1968 Globe & Mail (Toronto) 17 Feb. 6/2 Children sneaking cookies from a cookie jar.
The OED grants that "cooky" and "cookey" are also found, but they're not the preferred spelling. ("Cooky" is, in fact, given its own entry; it's a name for a female cook.)
And NOW you're aware that the assumption that "cookie" must have been a back-formation from "cookies" is unfounded.
[Edited to note that, as TomDavidson points out below, these citations don't actually prove anything one way or the other. Oops.]
[Edited again to say I was wrong, wrong, wrong. See post even further below.]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I don't think there's an easy way to handle it.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
