quote: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?
Not condemning by itself, but condemning as close-minded, yes.
quote: Your sentiment and Malek's are the same. Both are having a defensive revulsion against an opponent who disrespects what they hold sacred
quote: 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You've read five chapters of an unpublished book, and you've shown the same sort of unflexible (close-minded) one-dimensional behaviour that you're railing against.
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.
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 ...
quote: You're offended by someone who has a negative view of people like you. Yet you claim you're open-minded, one of the most open-minded people out there. I'd say that if you really want to show your being open-minded just say you disagree, but can accept that characters point of view, even if it's narrow minded. After all, isn't being open-minded acknowledging views different from your own?
quote: What I marvel at is the inability of "open-minded" people to conceive of opposing viewpoints as having validity. I am warned that having a major character feel disdain for the intellectual establishment will "alienate" readers; but I have received identical warnings over the years because I've had sympathetically portrayed gay characters (for instance) - warnings with just the same tone of patronizing "helpfulness" offered here. Who would have trouble recognizing that warning as thinly disguised bigotry, when it comes from the Right?
quote: Your objections reveal Scott's point-- you hate the idea that someone disagrees with your political leanings so much you can't see your way to opening your mind that they might have a reason for disagreeing.
I don't know whether or not it's a demonstrable fact, Sevenar, but I think it's irrelevant. That offensiveness of that section of the book isn't about whether certain universities have leftist faculties, it's about the fact that what I believe was intended as a way of showing that Malek encountered many close-minded people, and he questioned whether he was close-minded also, and found that he wasn't, and that he was conservative while nearly all of the other students were liberal, ended up saying that Malek the conservative questioned whether he was close-minded like all the liberal students he knew were, with emphasis on the words "conservative" and "liberal" and on the correlation between the first and open-mindedness and the second and close-mindedness. It's a question of inflammatory rhetoric, rhetoric so inflammatory that one reader (who did know about Mr. Card's politics and qualities of writing) nearly stopped reading entirely. It's a question of the effectiveness of that piece as it pertains to authorial intent. It's a question of how necessary that section's offensiveness really is, and how it will affect sales. So even if this debate is about a matter of fact, the fact isn't the political leanings of university faculties, it's about what Mr. Card intended to do, what he actually did, the discrepancy between the two (or lack thereof), and what he chooses to do after the fact.
quote: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?
I think debate at this point is silly, too. Some people offer up their reactions to certain parts in the book so far with the concern that they might offend readers needlessly and hurt sales, and nearly everyone else assumes that they're just close-minded liberals. Irony? Plenty of it. And if I didn't know Mr. Card's political views, no, I really don't think that it would have changed my initial reaction, nor would it have changed my posting of it. It would have deleted my second reaction, though, of "come on, it's Orson Scott Card. He's a moderate at a university, and intelligent, and he doesn't use his books as a vessel for propaganda. This must have been a mistake." If I didn't enjoy his other books and stories, though, I'd have simply stopped reading and I never would have bothered to mention my reaction to anyone. I have better things to read than political thrillers (which I don't normally read) that vilify liberals in the second chapter as close-minded, all other things being equal. Knowing whose work it is, however, is stronger for me than that section is; I'm just worried that that won't be the case for other readers.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Your citations don't show "cookie" as a singular noun until 1897.
Oops. Good point. I stand corrected.
I'd still like to see some evidence that "cooky" came first, though. It seems unlikely that such a citation wouldn't have been chosen if this were the case... but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any proof, but I do see how the word could easily behave like "primary" or "bakery."
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gwen: Thank you for that reasonable and well-documented rebuttal. I do concede the point that certain readers will find bits of Empire offensive to their particular ideologies. (I do think that's unavoidable, though, given the subject matter of the novel. A child-labor activist could find Ender's Game offensive if he or she really wanted to.)
However, I think the validity of the offended's discomfiture does involve a question of degree. I could be wrong, though. How about this? Consider a Catholic taking offense at The DaVinci Code for its suggestion that Jesus may have fathered a child, versus a Jew taking offense at Passion Of The Christ for depicting Caiaphas, the high priest, as a murderer. One is offended over an author's conjecture, while one is offended over the surviving historical account of the event. Calling TDVC anti-Catholic in that circumstance is really a matter of opinion. But calling POTC anti-Semitic based on its protrayal of Caiaphas is as absurd as calling it anti-Christian over its portrayal of Judas Iscariot.
In that light, is calling Empire anti-liberal based on five chapters and the author's known political views factually valid, or merely subjective opinion?
Regards, Sev
Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: However, I think the validity of the offended's discomfiture does involve a question of degree. I could be wrong, though. How about this? Consider a Catholic taking offense at The DaVinci Code for its suggestion that Jesus may have fathered a child, versus a Jew taking offense at Passion Of The Christ for depicting Caiaphas, the high priest, as a murderer. One is offended over an author's conjecture, while one is offended over the surviving historical account of the event.
In your opinion. To those of us who think that those stories were made up as they were in order to justify hatred against Jews, it's anything but a historical account.
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: Calling TDVC anti-Catholic in that circumstance is really a matter of opinion. But calling POTC anti-Semitic based on its protrayal of Caiaphas is as absurd as calling it anti-Christian over its portrayal of Judas Iscariot.
Well... no. It simply means that many Christians have grown out of their literal reading of a text that is essentially anti-semitic in nature. While Mel Gibson is among those who embraces that original text and its message.
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: In that light, is calling Empire anti-liberal based on five chapters and the author's known political views factually valid, or merely subjective opinion?
I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.
Those liberals who have taken what he wrote as a personal attack are merely basically painting a sign on themselves that says: "I am that kind of liberal." That's nothing to be proud of.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem isn't so much whether it's realistic for a conservative, open-minded soldier to come across a lot of students who are close-minded and liberal when attending classes at Princeton. The problem is that the wording of the passage seems to equate liberalism with closemindedness and condemn liberals--not close-minded people--in pretty strong terms. And I think that, if that was not in fact Mr. Card's intent when writing that passage, the language in it (especially the confusion as to whether it's the narrator or the POV character saying certain things) detracts from the point he was trying to make, and will alienate readers unnecessarily. Now if the goal was in fact to alienate readers--well, not exactly that, but to make them shocked and offended and think a little more about how they see the world (I know that I'm being more careful about groupthinking now that I've read his World Watch columns, for instance, and I normally don't come across people who disagree with me with whom I can have a civil debate without worrying about offending or irritating them with my opinions)--then the passage should be published in the dead-tree version unchanged. But if it wasn't...then maybe all of our posts about our reactions to that section will be helpful.
Edited to respond to starLisa:
quote:I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.
Those liberals who have taken what he wrote as a personal attack are merely basically painting a sign on themselves that says: "I am that kind of liberal." That's nothing to be proud of.
I don't think it is so clear, and no, they aren't.
Maybe it's clear to you that that particular passage was only against close-minded liberals, but it's only clear to me because I know what his political views are and I've seen him write similar attacks in the past, with all the qualifiers that are missing in this passage (that conservatives are also often close-minded, that not all liberals are close-minded, that the first are also bad while the second are all right). Even with that knowledge, the only thing that kept me reading was my knowledge about Mr. Card's writing strengths--which is knowledge that many readers of this novel won't have. Several other people have expressed similar concerns about this passage.
And to the second point: the people who have expressed concern about the apparent anti-liberal slant in these chapters do not all self-identify as liberals, first of all. Second, it doesn't have to be a personal attack on the actual person reading it for that person to be offended. Third, the problem we're having with that section is that it doesn't appear to us to be only attacking close-mindedness; it sounds like an attack on all liberals--which we're pretty sure wasn't the intent. And we're worried that that accidental meaning will turn off potential buyers. If it was nothing but an attack on close-mindedness--as I think it was intended to be--I wouldn't have a problem with it. ("I'm tolerant of everybody except intolerant people," right?) And saying that we had a probably unintended reaction when we read that section is not the same as saying it's because we consider ourselves to be a part of that subset that we think that that section is attempting to attack at all. We've all stated that we don't think we're close-minded; we've all stated that it's the way the message is expressed (in strong language that emphasizes the wrong point), not the content of the message in terms of "ooh, he said the word 'liberal'", that we're concerned about.
Maybe the fact that it's so easy to misinterpret what we're saying, when we've said it a dozen different ways (including with lettered and numbered lists! I like lists...*g*), should give you pause when you assume that everyone who reads that passage will interpret it correctly. Try seeing if you can see how that language might be offensive to other people. (Your earlier homophobic, anti-Semitic, et cetera, author you still read gives me the impression that you're thicker-skinned than most...)
quote:I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.
I would like to see other types of liberals in action in the novel before I agree to this. The one positive mention we have of a "classic" liberal is of Malek's nanny-state-loving wife, and the novel takes pains to point out her dissatisfaction with Card's perception of modern liberalism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I think that it's pretty clear from what Card has written that he is anti-a particular type of liberal.
Those liberals who have taken what he wrote as a personal attack are merely basically painting a sign on themselves that says: "I am that kind of liberal." That's nothing to be proud of.
Whoa, what's up with all the personal attacks?
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: In your opinion. To those of us who think that those stories were made up as they were in order to justify hatred against Jews, it's anything but a historical account.
With respect, if merely thinking a story was made up were a valid counter to its accuracy, all history books would be forced into the fiction section.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Well... no. It simply means that many Christians have grown out of their literal reading of a text that is essentially anti-semitic in nature. While Mel Gibson is among those who embraces that original text and its message.
The gospel account itself is not anti-Semitic, even though the ignorant have tended to magnify Matthew 27:25 as a condemnation of all Jews. (the statement is not repeated in the other three gospels and is suspected as a later addition to Matthew, much like the trinity was added to Matthew 28:19 after it was made doctrine hundreds of years later.)
But this is fairly far afield from the Empire discussion. Might be better suited to a different thread.
Regards, Sev
Posts: 12 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, one last post from me in this thread.
Two scenarios. Given an argument against a liberal who dislikes Bush and is against the war in Iraq:
Example 1.) The war in Iraq is the next step in the war on terrorism. It would be stupid to attempt to fight terrorism only at home because, inevitably, something would slip through the cracks and we'll endure another attack. We should take the offensive and preemptively defend ourselves. Maybe Bush didn't do it in the best possible way but it was a step forward and we should work now towards making the plan succeed. Bush is a great leader because he has guts and understands the issues. Kerry would’ve been a much weaker leader because he flip-flopped on issues and America needs consistency.
Example 2.) Liberals are all stupid. If we didn't invade Iraq, Al Queda would've been allowed to grow and we surely would've taken more terrorist hits on American land. Liberals are too stupid to be trusted with homeland defense. You don't have any balls and if Kerry was elected, this country would certainly have fallen in ruins. Oh, and your mother is a <bleep> so you have no credibility on the issues anyways. Could Icec0o1 possibly be wrong about this? No, he is not. Liberals are enemies of America, are completely unpatriotic, and should be eliminated.
The 2nd chapter in this book felt a lot more like example 2 then 1 and that was my gripe. Present Malek’s hate towards the liberals, his disapproval of their beliefs, and his disdain for their close-mindedness. Even if you group all liberals and elitists in one camp, that’s still fine. But Mr. Card, you do not have to be directly and personally offensive towards half of your readers.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: In your opinion. To those of us who think that those stories were made up as they were in order to justify hatred against Jews, it's anything but a historical account.
With respect, if merely thinking a story was made up were a valid counter to its accuracy, all history books would be forced into the fiction section.
I was imprecise. I should have said "To those of us who have reason to think", instead of merely "To those of us who think". Your point is well taken.
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Well... no. It simply means that many Christians have grown out of their literal reading of a text that is essentially anti-semitic in nature. While Mel Gibson is among those who embraces that original text and its message.
The gospel account itself is not anti-Semitic, even though the ignorant have tended to magnify Matthew 27:25 as a condemnation of all Jews. (the statement is not repeated in the other three gospels and is suspected as a later addition to Matthew, much like the trinity was added to Matthew 28:19 after it was made doctrine hundreds of years later.)
I was thinking more of the anti-semitic diatribe that occupies the entirety of Matthew 23.
quote:Originally posted by Sevenar: But this is fairly far afield from the Empire discussion. Might be better suited to a different thread.
quote:I was thinking more of the anti-semitic diatribe that occupies the entirety of Matthew 23.
starLisa, Matthew 23 is mostly diatribe against certain Jews-- specifically, the scribes and the Pharisees.
It's no more anti-semitic than God's pronouncements in Exodus 32, and every other time Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah chastised the Israelites for their wickedness.
But I believe we've had this discussion before.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was thinking more of the anti-semitic diatribe that occupies the entirety of Matthew 23.
starLisa, Matthew 23 is mostly diatribe against certain Jews-- specifically, the scribes and the Pharisees.
This is really the wrong topic for this, but we are the scribes and the Pharisees. Judaism is a religion of law, and that's what Matthew 23 is railing against.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's no more anti-semitic than God's pronouncements in Exodus 32, and every other time Moses, or Elijah, or Isaiah chastised the Israelites for their wickedness.
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: 1. Thanks for catching the inconsistency about what Cole is wearing. It'll be fixed in the copy edit.
Ok, I know this is a deviation from the more heated areas of this discussion, but I was thrown of by this comment from OSC... Was I the only one that just assumed that Cole was joking when he said he'd be there with his class shirt on? I just figured he was making light of many places in DC being thronged by hundreds of school children in bright color-coded shirts...
Was this not the intent? and/or are you just planning on "fixing it" so that the joke is more clear?
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys are derailing this thread. Here we were trying to get a good flame war going, and you come along and have a semi-civil discussion about something unrelated.
Er, I meant the other way around. Yeah, that's it.
*Sneaks out back door of thread.*
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I read the excerpt, I was both interested enough to keep reading and at the same time a bit disappointed in the writing.
I originally wasn't going to post anything here, because I didn't know how to explain my opinion in a constructive manner for OSC. That, plus it's already written, so any criticism on writing style is too late.
Anyways, I think the comments posted by Chris Bridges is the closest to my reaction on reading the book.
Several people have already mentioned Heinlein and his "philosophizing" via his characters. I definitely noticed it, I think that OSC needs some more practice on this.
I think the best way I can describe it, ( and keep in mind that I apologize for not being able to make this criticism very constructive) is that I don't think that OSC enjoyed writing this book very much. I get the sense that rather than being a labor of love, or an inspired work, OSC combined a good idea for a novel with an urge to get a bunch of his gripes off his chest.
Hmm. Thinking constructively...
Dear Mr. Card,
The internet is a bit of an echo chamber. There may be a lot of noise, but it doesn't mean it's from a lot of people.
You have a real genius for storytelling, and your book sales prove it.
However, I sense that most of your book sales come from people who love the stories you tell, rather than from people who want to hear your thoughts about "People Who Are Hurting America"
From what I've read so far, there's a fascinating plot. What if there was a second civil war in America? How would some power-hungry clique successfully pull off a coup d'etat? Since the very structure of the US Government would need to be thrown out, how would they lay the groundwork? What series of events would need to unfold in order for them to attempt to take power? Who would be their pawns and puppets? How would ornery Americans react?
I think there's too much stuff in Chapter 2 that doesn't advance the story. It's as if people are hesitant to "properly" edit your book, and they don't ruthlessly cut out all the bits that are tangents or irrelevant. Furthermore, I think your status as a writer means that people are hesitant to criticize some of the ideas upon which the story is based. And by people, I mean people that you actually know in real life, not the people on the internet.
I mean, I'm no War Nerd, nor do I know much about history, but I can't help but get the sense that the "setting the stage" that goes on in Chapter 2 seems overly contrived and unrealistic. Not just the dialogue, but also the ideas being conveyed.
I can't help but feel that a genius historian worried about the prospect of a group trying to take over the US would be discussing a different list of items. I'm trying to be diplomatic here, so please excuse the vagueness. Perhaps you could talk to someone intelligent in your life, and say, "here's what Torrent's thesis is. Here's what he believes is going on. Does this make sense to you? " Hammer it out a bit, refine it, then, make sure that Torrent's discussions come from those refined points. If there's going to be a group plotting a takeover, their plans should be realistic... (edit: And no, I'm not talking about the places where Torrent is being deliberately provocative)
Another specific criticism is the whole "noble martyr" thing of putting up with the Liberal Establishment while Malek's at Princeton. It's not that the environment isn't like that (I wouldn't know, but I sense you're on the mark) but my criticism is that it doesn't advance the story. I know that on the Internet, the echo chamber makes it sound like your opinions on this subject are important. But I doubt if most of your book-buying audience really care about how the University environment has become a sort of theological school of the Left rather than a marketplace of ideas. We want ripping good yarns that make us cheer the hero as he overcomes the supposedly insurmountable obstacles! (edit: Remember that song from Sesame Street? Which of these things doesn't belong? Malek and his team successfully avoiding an ambush and rescuing a village. Malek and Cole racing to thwart the plot to attack the White House. Malek tries to come up with a plan after the White House is attacked and the President and VP are assasinated. Malek nobly suffers in the PC environment of a University.
Other comments: Chapter 1 starts off "weird" with the way it takes so long to go from "The American soldiers" to naming names. Sorry I don't know how to put that in constructive terms.
Chapters 3 and 4 are pretty entertaining. I enjoyed them.
Chapter 5 seems like a necessary part to move the action along, but I think somewhere there was a comment about the muted reaction, as if it was no more than a Starbucks that had been blown up. It was a point I didn't notice at the time, but it's a good one.
So, bottom line, please find yourself an editor you respect, that isn't afraid to challenge your ideas nor your writing. Because I sense this book could sell a lot more copies if you focus on what you do best.
Respectfully, Tom
(after thinking about it overnight, some edits done in italics)
posted
Chirs Bridges wrote: "Real people don't talk that way..."
And I'd like to direct you all to the exceptionally long post by the lovely Gwen that quotes a lot of prior posts from this thread...now feel free to laugh as I just have! ROFL
Ok, I was bothered a bit by all of it, too, but not enough to get as worked up over it as it feels like most of us are doing. I came to discuss the chapters and my slight discomfort (which, by the way is entirely different from anyone else's that has been posted here.) with the fatalistic view of America's future. Now, this entire thread has dissolved into a pointless round of "You're a jerk! no, YOU're the jerk! no you are! no YOU are!" We have gone from simply trying to point out to the author our own reactions to the story, to name calling, propaganda paranoia, and now anti-semetism???
I am a Christian, and I take GREAT offense at being refered to as an anti-semite. I may not be perfect, but I am most definitely not a bigot. When you refer to any part of the Bible as anti-semetic, you are calling a LOT of people bigots, and that is MOST uncalled for. Perhaps you DO see some of it as anti-semetic, but I've never seen any of Christ's life as such. The condemnation never lay on the Jews of Christ's time, but upon the men in power. Christ himself was a Jew, was he not? So doesn't that mean that many Christian beliefs are based on the beliefs of the Jews he descended from? I can't speak for anyone else, but that has given me a healthy respect for those that still follow the old ways so dilligently and reverently.
Let's face it folks. No matter what you say or do, or how well you try to word your thoughts, someone is going to be offended, as I am sure was proven by my reaction to above comments. The point I am trying to make is that more than anything else, we need to stop taking offense where none is intended, and we need to stop taking offense for other people. If we can't respect one another's beliefs, then we need to remember to RESPECT one another's RIGHT to their own beliefs. If you choose to believe that I am an anti-semite because I am a Christian, then so be it. That is YOUR choice. However, you should know that that hurts my feelings, and that is all I have to say about that.
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's always been my joke. Surprising how many blank looks you can get just by mentioning that Jesus was Jewish. Both ethnically and religiously if I read the relevant parts right. For all I care, Matthew can go...to Princeton.
So I was sorta just ignoring Scott/Sevaran/starLisa's discussion--interesting, but I'm not going to go into the de-rail.
And to get the thread back on track:
quote:Ok, I know this is a deviation from the more heated areas of this discussion, but I was thrown of by this comment from OSC... Was I the only one that just assumed that Cole was joking when he said he'd be there with his class shirt on? I just figured he was making light of many places in DC being thronged by hundreds of school children in bright color-coded shirts...
It made sense that Cole would have been joking, but I guess it wasn't meant to have been read that way, it confused people, and it was an easy change, so Mr. Card just decided it needed fixing.
In other words, you came up with a nice Watsonian explanation that made total sense for what was actually a Doylist error. Heh.
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: I am a Christian, and I take GREAT offense at being refered to as an anti-semite.
I wasn't calling you an anti-semite. Not unless you're calling me a hypocrite and a blind fool. I'm a Jew. Part of a holy tradition passed down from Moses at Sinai, through the scribes, through the Pharisees, until today.
If you aren't saying that I'm a hypocrite and a blind fool, then you're not saying what's in Matthew 23. But what's in that chapter is anti-semitic vitriol, plain and simple.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: I may not be perfect, but I am most definitely not a bigot.
You'll have to show me where I called you that.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: When you refer to any part of the Bible as anti-semetic, you are calling a LOT of people bigots, and that is MOST uncalled for.
I disagree that referring to part of the Christian scriptures as being anti-semitic means calling you anti-semitic.
I find it interesting, though, that you think my calling that book anti-semitic is an attack against you, but you can't seem to understand that calling the Sages of my people hypocrites and blind fools might be kind of offensive.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: Perhaps you DO see some of it as anti-semetic, but I've never seen any of Christ's life as such. The condemnation never lay on the Jews of Christ's time, but upon the men in power.
We're not talking about the whole crucifixion thing here. I'm talking about what JC is supposed to have actually said. In his own words.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: Christ himself was a Jew, was he not?
So was Karl Marx. So was Tomas de Torquemada (maybe). Being a Jew hasn't stopped certain people from saying and doing things against the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: So doesn't that mean that many Christian beliefs are based on the beliefs of the Jews he descended from?
I'm sorry, but not really.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: I am trying to make is that more than anything else, we need to stop taking offense where none is intended, and we need to stop taking offense for other people.
I don't understand. I made a comment about a book, and you took it as an offense against you. Isn't that exactly what you're saying that people shouldn't do?
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: If you choose to believe that I am an anti-semite because I am a Christian, then so be it. That is YOUR choice. However, you should know that that hurts my feelings, and that is all I have to say about that.
I never said anything of the sort. And I hope that some day you'll find a way to understand how someone else's feelings could be hurt by being called a hypocrite and a blind fool.
posted
I got home from work and consulted my bookshelves... specifically, the 1864 edition of Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, and a small 1883 school abridgment of Worcester's. The former defines "cookie" as "cooky"; the latter has only "cooky." Uncle Orson is right. Mea culpa!
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*Actually likes the spelling "Cooky" better* It looks rather cute. And I want an 1864 Webster. They have words like rantipole.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's falling apart, Rivka. That was the only way I could afford one. And it's actually a 1903 reprint, with a supplement of new words.
...but, yes, I periodically check eBay for old dictionaries. I find it fascinating -- and sometimes useful -- to compare entries in editions from different decades.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Both sides demonize each other. Both sides seem incapable of recognizing that MOST Americans are squarely in the middle, hating how common abortion is, detesting late-term abortions, but also unwilling to criminalize abortions or ban them in the early stages. The one side looks only at the polls that show that most people oppose "banning abortions," while the other side looks only at the polls that show that most people favor "eliminating late-term abortions." Thus they can look only at the polls that give them a majority - whereas NEITHER extreme actually has majority support.
Why can't you see this happening, and why can't you see YOURSELF doing this in this argument about the "cultural establishment." Who the heck is "they?" I've asked you this before.
You even said in this post that a person who believes that no intelligent person can disagree with him is uneducated, and NOT intelligent. Yet earlier in this thread you said that if one doesn't believe that universities are run as institutions of enforced ideology then its obviously because we have already been indoctrinated, or are too stupid to tell the difference.
Which is it? Obviously the only intelligent, insightful person here is YOU. You're certainly the only person whom you seem to give any credit in that department. Gah. I'm disgusted at you for not recognizing the difference between having a point, and being totally correct, or being willing to make the distinction. What should I care though? I guess I've been indoctrinated into my ideology of... oh wait, I feel exactly the same way about education should be as you do. Well this certainly doesn't add up Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chirs Bridges wrote: "Real people don't talk that way..."
And I'd like to direct you all to the exceptionally long post by the lovely Gwen that quotes a lot of prior posts from this thread...now feel free to laugh as I just have! ROFL
Which just proves my point. People write in complete sentences. They don't often talk that way.
Here's two people talking about the movie "Snakes on a Plane."
Example 1:
"I can't wait to see 'Snakes on a Plane' tonight," Sam said.
Jim agreed. "Yes, the anticipation, driven by the viral marketing on the Internet, has worked me up into a frenzy, as it did many of my friends."
"But the snobbish movie critics will surely denigrate this film, not realizing that they are not its intended audience." Sam said, and we walked on.
Example 2:
"You ready for tonight?" Sam asked.
I grinned. "'I want these--" Sam joined in for the rest. "---(expletive) snakes off this (expletive) plane!" And we both broke up laughing.
I knew it would be a dumb movie. The critics would surely think so. But that was so not the point...
Doesn't matter what the opinions are, and you won't find me criticizing an author over the opinions of his or her characters. Not my call, not my book. But literary criticism is fair game, and if my characters' dialogue sounde unrealistic or stilted I would want to know about it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem is that the wording of the passage seems to equate liberalism with closemindedness and condemn liberals--not close-minded people--in pretty strong terms.
He calls the wife a liberal. I assume he would be referring to a Martin-Luther King type of liberal.
See, there is at least discussion of Neo-conservatives and an sense that they may be betraying true conservatism. But no one acknowleges the Neo-liberals, which would be created out of necessity. That would be a liberal who cries for a narrower court ruling to serve the moment of a vote recount, or who opposes rewriting the constitution.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'd like to direct you all to the exceptionally long post by the lovely Gwen that quotes a lot of prior posts from this thread...now feel free to laugh as I just have! ROFL
As Chris pointed out, there's a difference between talking and writing.
quote:Ok, I was bothered a bit by all of it, too, but not enough to get as worked up over it as it feels like most of us are doing. I came to discuss the chapters and my slight discomfort (which, by the way is entirely different from anyone else's that has been posted here.) with the fatalistic view of America's future. Now, this entire thread has dissolved into a pointless round of "You're a jerk! no, YOU're the jerk! no you are! no YOU are!" We have gone from simply trying to point out to the author our own reactions to the story, to name calling, propaganda paranoia, and now anti-semetism???
Way off. This discussion, with a few notable exceptions, has been markedly civil. And, pardon me, but you've been here two days. This is not thread dissolution or thread drift*. It has two or three posters off-track and we're on page four. It's practically miraculous.
*though, knowing sL's penchant for stirring the pot, I have a feeling it's heading that way.
Btw, don't think I'm railing on you. Welcome to hatrack.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, there is at least discussion of Neo-conservatives and an sense that they may be betraying true conservatism.
It's worth noting, by the way, that neo-conservatives are actually betraying what is traditionally considered liberalism. Neo-conservatism sprung from the dissatisfaction of some liberals with the dovish, feel-good wing of the Democratic Party; Zell Miller and OSC, for example, could easily fit under this umbrella. Traditional liberals wanted to give criminals job skills to keep them off the streets; neocons, who described themselves as "liberals mugged by reality," thought a better use of the same funds would be more cops. That's part of why the lines are so blurred nowadays; neo-conservatives are still at heart big-government liberals, but prefer the government to focus its efforts on the direct projection and application of power.
A neo-liberal, by this logic, would be an isolationist conservative who felt that we were getting too involved overseas and believed we should be focusing more on education and public relations.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Moreover, he did it in a narrative tone ("Am I like them, just a bigot learning only what fits my worldview? ... But finally he reached the conclusion: No, he was not.") This tone made it feel more like it was the author's opinion more so than the character's. (Notice the difference between the question “Am I like them” and the answer “No, he was not.” I would think ‘No, I’m not’ would serve the same purpose and be less offensive. The former implies outside absolute approval of his beliefs.)
This makes me think that a large portion of the problem is with people who don't fully appreciate how deeply OSC goes into POV. It was one of the things I had to learn very quickly when reading Speaker for the Dead (my first OSC book). Although, of course, I had read thousands of books narrated in third-person with each section having an identifiable POV, Speaker did this unrelentingly. (That's not a pejorative - basically, most of the books I've read do it in a lackadaisical manner.)
And the points of view were so strong, and EVERYTHING that happened depended on them. Novinha seen from outside is plain nuts, Novinha seen from her own POV is the most sympathetic person whose every action I think is wrong I've ever read. By far.
In this case, I can attest that Malek's opinion as expressed in the section you quoted is one shared by many military people in academia.
This is the reason I never for one second saw a difference between the quoted thoughts and the "No, he was not" outside of quotes. All of OSC's writing is like this, and it's one of the reasons I like it so much.
Putting something disagreeable in the mouth of a character one suspects the author to be sympathetic to shouldn't cause anyone problems.
It is a huge mistake to assume that the thoughts and POV of a sympathetic character are shared by the author.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, you guys don't go half way on anything do you? A mere five chappies and dear Mr. Card has been questioned concerning the deep psychological workings of the few fictional characters he has given us a glimpse of in a preview. Relax and wait until the entire book is at your disposal before jumping down each other's throats.
Those first two pages of the thread were really out for blood. I'm no lackwit, and I had to use google dictionary to decipher some of those insults.
As MommaMuse said, I've got a spot for Empire on my shelves and am anxiously awaiting it's release.
A blanket "HELLO!" to all of you, I'm looking forward to getting to know you all in the future. Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, you guys don't go half way on anything do you? A mere five chappies and dear Mr. Card has been questioned concerning the deep psychological workings of the few fictional characters he has given us a glimpse of in a preview. Relax and wait until the entire book is at your disposal before jumping down each other's throats.
Has he? There were some questions as to the realisticness of the way Cole and Malek spoke to each other following the assassination, as I recall, but I didn't think anybody'd asked about the psychological workings of anyone in the book...
quote:Those first two pages of the thread were really out for blood. I'm no lackwit, and I had to use google dictionary to decipher some of those insults.
Not out for blood, surely. Maybe a few bruises, a black eye or two, but no blood.
quote:As MommaMuse said, I've got a spot for Empire on my shelves and am anxiously awaiting its release.
Me too! *Squeals* I just can't wait for a new, exciting, Orson Scott Card novel to come out!
Now all I have to do is finish reading the Alvin the Maker series, read the Homecoming series, read Treasure Box and Wyrms and all the other standalones, read his women of the Bible books, and read all the short stories I haven't gotten my hands on yet. /fangirl
quote:A blanket "HELLO!" to all of you, I'm looking forward to getting to know you all in the future.
posted
I'm still not seeing this all out attack-fest that OSC and some of the people supporting him seem to have seen. It looks to me like there may have been some assuming that this was going to happen or that this must be the motivation for people who would have criticisms. But, when it didn't materialize - and to be honest, I expected more of the things that people are claiming are there that I'm not seeing - people still saw it, maybe because they were expecting to see it?
---
I really wasn't bothered by the Princeton stuff. I wasn't entirely sure where it was going, but I figured that it was so obviously not an accurate reflection of reality that OSC was either introducing a way for us to see flaws in the perception of the viewpoint character or that we were dealing with a world that was altered in this way to make the civil war scenario plausible. As things stand right now, I think all out civil war is about as likely as all the PolySci grad students at Princeton being atheist idiots who are more interested in making sophmoric comments than in arguing over theory and history. So, I could completely see OSC making that change and then making it over the top enough so that people got that he wasn't saying that this is how things actually are.
Still, the 5th chapter dialog really threw me out of the story. I know plenty of military, as well as police and firemen. I am familiar with the theory and practice of dealing with people who have been through traumatic experiences. And I can't see anyone I know or can conceive of acting, thinking, and speaking in the way that Cole and Malek did in the end of chapter five.
They were not only witnesses (direct ones at that) of an unprecedented and incredibly traumatic experience, but also found themselves pretty much in the middle of it. Remember how you felt during 9/11. Now imagine that not only where you actually there, watching, when the planes struck the building, but alo that you were pretty sure that both the peopel involved and the people investigating it were going to be gunning for you.
There are multiple possible reactions that people have to situations like this. Pretty much the whole spectrum of stress-related behavior is open from avoidance reactions to zany behavior (or mania). You're going to expect shock, especially when we're talking about very soon afterwards, which is going to generally going to lead to a flattened affect.
Which we see. However, the flattened affect that comes with shock isn't being calm. It's a result of a breakdown in a person's normal cognitive and emotional flow. If you see shock as severe as would lead to as diminshed an emotional response as these two characters are showing, you're going to see many of the other features of shock, such as the important ones here: disjointed and/or ego-centric thinking.
Cole's our viewpoint character and his thinking is clearly not disjointed. If anything, it's more cohesive and structured than that of a person going about their normal day. Neither is it egocentric. There's a distinct lack of personal referents (I, me, mine, etc.) or relevance.
Of course, they are both heavily trained, which might account for it. Except, the training that people get to deal with stress involes focusing on specific relevant things. Often, it's a set of instructions or steps that have been drilled into you, but in the case of "think on your feet" Spec Ops types, it would be on the overall mission.
The problem I see with that is that Cole's musings and the subsequent conversation between fail this in much the same way that Cole's thought failed to egocentric test. The thoughts and conversation are pretty much irrelevant to the situation they find themselves in.
Nor could it be preparation and an expectation that this might happen that would lessen the shock because, while you could make a case for this in Malek's case, there's no possible way this would apply to Cole, who was, after all, our preternatually calm and collected narrator.
---
The realism of the situation aside, I think this chapter represents a tremendous missed opportunity. A writer of OSC's talent could mix the shock, anger, and various other emotions people in this situation would be feeling with the training, drive, and resolve of these super soldier patriots into a scene full of tension, menace, and emotional resonance. We could have Cole, a reasonably young man who up until very recently didn't even have a clue what his job was kind of losing it when throw into the middle of this situation he was not at all prepared for and we could have the more experienced, prepared Malek who, while still shaken, is bringing him back to stable. Or any number of other powerful, compelling scenes. Instead we get something that sounds like an essay OSC wrote up beforehand and was looking for a place to drop into the narrative presented by two basically indistinguishable characters.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star lisa, I NEVER called you a hypocryte OR a blind fool, and if you re-read my post, I think you'll see that. As for being offended, I really wasn't, I was just trying to make the point that anyone can be offended by what we say. Your response proves my point. Please don't be angry with me, I don't really have anything against you.
and Chris Bridges, my reference to "people don't really talk like that..." was more in the nature of a friendly poke in the ribs. I knew exactly what you were talking about; I was just being silly! =D
Maybe I should fiture out how to use the emoticons, wot?
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: Star lisa, I NEVER called you a hypocryte OR a blind fool, and if you re-read my post, I think you'll see that.
Oh, I know you didn't. Just like I never called you an anti-semite. That was the point I was trying to make.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assumed it was when I read it. Based on the context of the post, it seemed most likely. I meant to ask SL if that's what she meant, but forgot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow….. You all realize it’s just a story right? OSC doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the characters or what they are doing. But is telling a story about them. And by the way, a very exciting story so far too! If it continues like this we might be in for another Ender’s Game. Great job Scott!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow….. You all realize it’s just a story right? OSC doesn’t necessarily agree or disagree with the characters or what they are doing. But is telling a story about them. And by the way, a very exciting story so far too! If it continues like this we might be in for another Ender’s Game. Great job Scott!
You realize that that point has been made and replied to several times already in this thread, right?
He is telling a story about them, but he also sounds like he's trying to make a point (as the author, not as the character) about liberalism and closemindedness, when we think he's really trying to make the point just about the latter, and so because some people got offended almost to the point of stopping reading, we're telling him our reactions so that he has the information he needs to decide whether or not to tweak that part to make it a) less offensive and b) more in line with his original intent, in order to keep more readers and sell more copies.
The fact that "it's just a story" is no more a defense against (apparent and we believe unintended) unnecessary liberal-bashing than it was for ER's unnecessary male-bashing that Mr. Card critiqued.
I'm starting to wonder if I'm not explaining myself clearly, with all the people who keep coming in and saying either "it's just a story" or "you're just saying that because you're a liberal" or "you're not agreeing with him because you're closeminded" or any combination of those three. Are we talking past each other?
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, what I think you folks don't understand is how many stories, stand up comedy routines, TV shows, and movies that we, as conservatives, have had to read or watch that talk about religious folks as if they were idiots, about creationists as if they were something out of the fourteenth century, and about conservatives as if they were racist and opressive.
But we move past it and try to enjoy the story anyway, accepting that the author and/or the character have different views from us. And then we try to enjoy it anyway, because otherwise we'd have very little to read.
So it's not that we're talking past each other. It's that we've already had the experience you seem to be having here, and we guess we forgot that it had ever occured to us it was worth getting worked up about.
In this case, I think Card is being very honest in his portrayal of a character, making him similar to people he knew who were in a similar situation. If it's hard for you to accept that the fictional character might really feel that way about those professors, remember how hard it was for me, as a conservative, to really go through school, knowing exactly how the majority of my professors felt about me.
So to put it simply:
We're the ones who are used to reading books about people who dissagree with us, and you might want to hear us out if you want advice about how to handle it and still enjoy the story.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's that we've already had the experience you seem to be having here
So it's a simple case of "suck it up," eh?
Is it your contention that most conservatives suffer with dignity and good grace through popular entertainments that contain unnecessary quantities of liberal propaganda?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's Card's choice? Pretend the character would enjoy being at the University, and enjoy the insightful people he met there?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Where would the fun in that be? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
Welcome to Hatrack, Karmen!
