posted
When writing about Cavil Planter, were Card's only two choices to make slavery look noble and attractive or to make Planter a ravening monster with unknown and inexplicable motives?
The man's very good at tone and characterization. He can do nuance.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Card has said that all characters see themselves as the hero of their own story. I guess that's what we're getting at with the complaints that these liberal college students seem more evil than Baba Yaga, Achilles or Cavil Planter. We aren't ever given their POV, but I trust that somewhere in this story there will be a POV chapters of a "blue-staters".
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it your contention that most conservatives suffer with dignity and good grace through popular entertainments that contain unnecessary quantities of liberal propaganda?
I know, the question is rhetorical, and your implication is that most conservatives don't suffer it with dignity, evidenced by protesters and whiners and the people who complain about the drive by media.
But the fact is, wthe vast majority of us do endure a lot of it quietly. Sure, there are the nuts who gripe about everything, but they're the same people who have offensive bumperstickers on their cars and don't just listen to talk radio shows, but actually call them.
But for most of us, we aren't just "sucking it up." We're actually reading it, processing it, even enjoying it--I am a HUGE Michael Moore fan, even though politcally, he and I agree on nothing--and letting it become a part of us. Maybe we agree, maybe we don't, maybe we're changed by it, maybe we aren't, but we've long since passed the phase where it was worth being offended and taking it personally that a fictional character--or even the author who created him--might disagree with us.
That's open mindedness. It's what we do, even when we encounter things that in many cases are far, far more offensive than anything Card did here. It doesn't mean we believe it all. It just means we don't think its very existance is somehow an affront to us.
quote:When writing about Cavil Planter, were Card's only two choices to make slavery look noble and attractive or to make Planter a ravening monster with unknown and inexplicable motives?
I almost brought up Cavil way back at the start of this thread, but I didn't want to get into it. I still don't, but I guess I'm masochistic.
I think the reason nobody was offended by Cavil was because nobody, not for one minute, believed that OSC thought the same thoughts he did. Card created a realistic character who offered insight into a person who thought the way Cavil did. Nobody got upset, because they were seeing it as fiction.
Here, because they believe Card might just be preaching his thoughts, they're getting worked up and feeling defensive, because they're not feeling as "safe" by being wrapped up in a fictional character. Instead, they're feeling genuinely attacted, like it was coming from Card.
If the passage had been written by, say, Vonnegut, people would probably have one of two reactions.
First, they might say Wow, look, Vonnegut can get inside the mind of a conservative. But they wouldn't get upset about what he was saying about liberals because they'd feel protected and safe that it was just a fictional character, separate from the author, in exactly the same way Cavil is separate from Card.
In fact, the exact same passage might then elicit response from the right wingers that it as being overly critical and satirical towards conservatives, showing them as people who think they're open-minded while shunning the ideas of others.
In other words, they'd project the meaning into the book from what they were expecting.
Really, that's what it feels like is happening here. Card's written a character. This one has feelings similar to Card's. But where people were willing to be patient and understand a man like Cavil Planter, in this case they're not willing to understand an inherently good man like Malek.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
StarLisa, I don't know if there is any way to "private message" anyone on here, but there is a question I'd like to ask. It's more of a question of ettiquette than anything else. Since you're Jewish, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you! =) If there is a way to PM that I don't know about, would you mind dropping me a line, please?
Ever notice how easy it is to misconstrue something written on a forum? LOL
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm late and I haven't really read this thread but I just want to put in my 2 cents about the book.
Man that's good stuff! I just think OSC has the most fascinating viewpoints ever. He introduces me to so many new ways of looking at things. I am definitely going to buy this book as soon as it comes out and it's jumping right to the top of my reading list.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm perfectly willing to accept this. But I would also appreciate some recognition that the "we" in that sentence applies as neatly to people on the other "side" of the metaphorical aisle.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
MommaMuse, Lisa's email address is visible in her profile. And if you were simply looking for a Jewish person to ask a question, she's far from the only one around here. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: StarLisa, I don't know if there is any way to "private message" anyone on here, but there is a question I'd like to ask. It's more of a question of ettiquette than anything else. Since you're Jewish, I thought I'd take the opportunity to ask you! =) If there is a way to PM that I don't know about, would you mind dropping me a line, please?
You can e-mail me. I don't have that hidden or anything. It's lisa at starways dot net. That's about the only way I know of.
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: Ever notice how easy it is to misconstrue something written on a forum? LOL
I may have noticed something along those lines. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I would also appreciate some recognition that the "we" in that sentence applies as neatly to people on the other "side" of the metaphorical aisle.
Seriously? Okay. There are people on the other side of the metaphorical aisle to whom this applies just as neatly.
I just don't think the popular culture gives them nearly as many chances to practice it. I'm glad this book gave them one.
I'm also confident that by the time the book is done, I'll have a few more chances to practice it again myself. A book that is, on at least some level, about the bitter divide in American politics, written by a guy who I think does a pretty good job of sitting in the middle--I'll bet I get a few things to think about myself before it's all said and done.
Of course, it could just be I'm projecting . . . it has been known to happen. Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm almost positive that a man who believes that George W. Bush is the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill can't really be considered as sitting in the middle of the American political landscape.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: [QUOTE] But the fact is, the vast majority of us do endure a lot of it quietly. Sure, there are the nuts who gripe about everything, but they're the same people who have offensive bumperstickers on their cars and don't just listen to talk radio shows, but actually call them.
If you mean US, as in EVERYONE, then I agree. Libs and Conservatives by and large don't go running their mouths at each other over everything; it only feels that way because of the few people on both sides who really do. To suggest that a liberal or a conservative is more likely to do ANTHING, makes me suspicious because people are the same across the board, and IME, they can and will do all the same things to win or make a point or get their way, no matter what it is. This is what makes being a liberal embarassing when members of the Democratic party say we are THIS way, and do something idiotic, and I imagine it makes being a conservative a little harrowing when the GOP does something monumentally stupid and calls it conservative.
quote:
But for most of us, we aren't just "sucking it up." We're actually reading it, processing it, even enjoying it--I am a HUGE Michael Moore fan, even though politcally, he and I agree on nothing--and letting it become a part of us. Maybe we agree, maybe we don't, maybe we're changed by it, maybe we aren't, but we've long since passed the phase where it was worth being offended and taking it personally that a fictional character--or even the author who created him--might disagree with us.
That's open mindedness.
Again I could and will apply this to ALL people, not just conservatives. If you think that statement doesn't describe most people (specifically the reading opposing opinions or being exposed to them), then you aren't one of the people it does apply to.
On liking Michael Moore: I can't see why. I am a liberal and a democrat, and I found a lot of F911 totally repugnant and embarassing. Further mortification when friends saw it and said it was the best thing ever. What? Ambushing people on the street, old men in their houses and beating up on them with your propaganda? Unfortunately the really important things Moore had to say in that movie are all mixed in with him making a total ass of himself. If I was a conservative, I would probably laugh with glee at how stupid we liberals are for liking that kind of thing. Then again this shows that most everyone responds viscerally to Moore's antics, they do have a universal appeal: "Go get em mike!"
Osc in this case, is willing to accuse liberals of all the things he wants you to ignore in his book. As liberals, we are not only artists or writers or musicians, but also naturally propagandists for our liberal kill-the-babies religion (I am projecting a few different wackos into the debate, sorry). Somehow he wants to be allowed to proffer his opinion, AND defend it, AND not be responsible for defending it. The complaints seem to be, largely, that his authorial voice is simply too strong in this passage. This is the same poor taste he is always accusing film directors of having, putting themselves in front of the characters, being characters in their films.
Yes, you can do this, you should do this, but when why how and how much are all debatable. It is his book, but once published, it becomes the property, in some ways and not in others, of the people who read it. Its interpretation, for example, is out of OSC's grasp once it is published. As any author is aware, a good book speaks for itself as much as it can, and it survives every wrong interpretation and critical suggestion for as long as it is able. But a book is a book and not a tool of the author in the end, a book once published, is not to be defended successfully by the author. It either defends itself, reasons itself out and survives, or it does not, and it is not a good book.
I for one, will read the whole book once published and see which will be the case. There is nothing however in what OSC says of it here which is going to convince me of one interpretation or another, the book will speak for itself.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm almost positive that a man who believes that George W. Bush is the second coming of Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill can't really be considered as sitting in the middle of the American political landscape.
Eleanor Roosevelt really hated Churchill, saw him as a bloody-handed schoolboy playing toy soldiers with real lives. And there was at least one person who thought Lincoln should be, you know, shot.
I mean, I could say Clinton was the second coming of Kennedy and FDR, and it wouldn't be a compliment.
quote: But where people were willing to be patient and understand a man like Cavil Planter, in this case they're not willing to understand an inherently good man like Malek.
posted
I'm willing to understand him. I'm hoping to, in fact. But the way he is presented makes it difficult for me, and not because his thoughts and opinions are alien or antithetical to my own (not all of them are), but because the style in which he is written is, to me, inaccessible.
I am starting to despair of making that point. I don't expect changes to be made -- too late for that kind of major change, and I have to assume this is precisely the style OSC intended, sweated over, and produced, with a result he is proud of. And I recognize also that this may simply be the way this genre is written, and that this is a small portion of a larger work which deserves to be judged in its entirety.
But if OSC's name wasn't on it and I skimmed through the first five chapters in the bookstore I doubt I would buy it, and not because of the politics. What I'm hoping is to get feedback on that without having to defend my openmindedness every time, which is why I started a new thread.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is absolutely nothing immoral or close-minded about getting away from something or someone who is offending you by simple name-calling and isn't giving you any supporting evidence for why he believes you are close minded.
Imagine walking on the street and someone starts cursing at you. Are you going to continue to listen to him and take it? I know I'm going to ask him if anything's wrong and if he continues to curse at me, I'm going to walk away and not waste my time.
I will never call anyone close-minded for not watching Bill Maher or Michael Moore if he finds them offensive. One is only close-minded only if he is rarely proactive about learning the other side of issues.
Chapter 2 is controversial and I like it a lot. But right in the middle, there is a part made up of three or four paragraphs with nothing but name-calling and insults with no support as to why the character feels that way.
I think there is nothing close-minded about closing the book and stop reading after those four paragraphs of pure insults. They have no meat, no background information, no supporting evidence; they're just there to offend.
As I said before, I only brought this up because I cared a lot for this project and wanted to see it succeed and I really don't like what this thread is turning into.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But if OSC's name wasn't on it and I skimmed through the first five chapters in the bookstore I doubt I would buy it, and not because of the politics. What I'm hoping is to get feedback on that without having to defend my openmindedness every time, which is why I started a new thread.
Its ironic Chris, that you of all people should be called closed minded for going to such lengths to be constructively critical of any book. That is just nonsense! People should know the difference between criticism and attack for one, and the difference between open-mindedness and blind acceptance for another. I think you're right on, for what that counts, (admittedly not much).
I had a literary criticism teacher recently mention to me that he had seen a comment written by me in an art criticism/comments folder at the local cafe. It was about the featured art in the cafe, and I had written that I liked the colors but not the subject matter (a bunch of skeletons and creepy stuff). Testing me, he suggested that I should perhaps use a psuedonym when being critical, and I said that I though my first name was sufficiently enigmatic. He said yes it might be, but he had recognized the hand writing, and what was more, the artist was his girlfriend. I stiffened, and he immediately laughed and said he was joking. Then he commented on his point, which was that I shouldn't be apologetic for a serious criticism, and that I had obviously cared enough to share my view with the artist. To attack me for that would have been stupid, because all I had proffered was an opinion based on solid observations: the colors WERE very rich, but the subject matter WAS uninspiring, at least to me.
For OSC to come here and argue with people about what his book means or represents or does seems silly to me. If it feels that he has put himself too much into it, then he has at least made it appear so, and he has effectively done that regardless of intent. A criticism which includes that observation, as a possibility, is ocmpletely valid; as are CB's other criticisms.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
And StarLisa, I emailed you, let's hope I got the email address right. It's easy enough, but this is ME we're talking about! LOL
Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What I'm hoping is to get feedback on that without having to defend my openmindedness every time, which is why I started a new thread."
Some of us are trying to join you there . . . *smile*
Admittedly, I am not much of a "critic" but I am looking at it through the eyes of just the "reader".
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rivka, Noemon, thanks for the outreach and encouragement! I appreciate it, even if I haven't mentioned it yet.
I don't know how to access other folks' profiles yet, since I haven't been able to spend much time fiddling around with the site this last week or so, but eventually, I'll get there! LOL
Again, dank you so beddy mush! Posts: 17 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much earlier own, it was mentioned how OSCs style seems to be morphing, I would agree. This piece is worlds away from Speaker for the Dead. I, for one, prefer the older style which seems more polished, but I realize that OSC can write however he wants.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MommaMuse: I don't know how to access other folks' profiles yet, since I haven't been able to spend much time fiddling around with the site this last week or so, but eventually, I'll get there!
Oops, I forgot to explain that. Just click on the person's name, over to the left of their post. Their profile will pop up. If they've chosen to list it, their email address will be visible.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"about creationists as if they were something out of the fourteenth century,"
Creationism was disproved in the ninteenth century, not the fourteenth. By this I mean seven-day literalist creationism, not the simple belief that a God or Gods created the earth and humanity, which cannot be disproved. OSC is the later, not the former, type of creationist, and I do not think that any of his work explicitly defends the former type.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With all this having been said, this sentence is brilliant:
'"It means," said the secretary, "that I've given up trying to understand Major Malek's role in this building and I've also given up trying to help young officers who are assigned to him. What's the point?"'
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: But let me have a character who not only has a moral code that closely resembles that of the 50% of America that voted for Bush
Some facts: in the 2004 U.S. presidential election ~122 million people voted for president: ~62 million voted for Bush ~59 million voted for Kerry
that ~62 million represents: * 50.7% of the popular vote (first time since 1988 that this number was over 50%) * 30.6% of eligible voters * or ~21% of the U.S. population
In the 2000 U.S. presidential election of course Bush didn't even receive 50% of the popular vote.
This paints a pretty dismal picture of the state of democracy in the U.S. today.
Which 50% of America OSC is referring to I am not sure - I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to say "the 50% of Americans that voted for president who voted for Bush". Even of that (admittedly large) number of people who actually voted for Bush I think it is unfair to lump them together and say they share a particular moral code.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Mr. smarty pants, how did this turnout rank in the overall history of presidential elections? I seem to remember it was relatively high.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure overall. Looks like it's the highest turnout rate since 1968 though, up nearly 10% since 1996. I think Americans in general are wanting to participate in real democracy. I also think that a large number are frustrated at how difficult it is within their current system. A situtation that I would contend is not something new.
In any case with just over 50% of the popular vote in what was essentially a two party race Bush's mandate was pretty weak (as would have been Kerry's if he had won in 2004 or Gore's in 2000 though his would have been stronger than Bush's). His mandate is even weaker considering his current approval ratings.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he meant to say "the 50% of Americans that voted for president who voted for Bush".
That's not giving him the benefit of the doubt. That's using common sense. Of course the '50% of America that voted for...' applies to those that voted, and voted for president. It's implicit.
As for your point about them sharing some moral code, I agree.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I just think OSC has the most fascinating viewpoints ever. He introduces me to so many new ways of looking at things. I am definitely going to buy this book as soon as it comes out and it's jumping right to the top of my reading list.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But I would also appreciate some recognition that the "we" in that sentence applies as neatly to people on the other "side" of the metaphorical aisle.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
