21–30 of 121 posts
Is that really true? The first Orwell book I read (Homage to Catalonia) was required for a history class -- a class that had previously assigned some truly awful literature. So I was pessimistic and I read it grudgingly at first. But halfway through the book, I realized I loved it.
"No book, however good, can survive a hostile reading." Is that really true? The first Orwell book I read ( Homage to Catalonia ) was required for a history class -- a class that had previously assigned some truly awful literature. So I was pessimistic and I read it grudgingly at first. But halfway through the book, I realized I loved it.
I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card
I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is he actually a terrible person, or merely one who happens to have unpopular opinions?
In my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to judge a person by their publicly stated opinions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to judge a person by their publicly stated opinions.
I generally agree, so long as you remember that talk is cheap. If you shouldn't respect someone too much for talking about the great things they'll do, you shouldn't hold it too hard against someone for talking about terrible positions.
If however, someone expresses and endorses kind and progressive social statements, I certainly do use that when judging their character.
Unfortunately does nothing to change my view that authors should probably keep away from their own reviews. If he'd had some brilliant new insight that would be one thing, but instead he just comes off as slightly more defensive than anyone who has sold tens of millions of books should. I guess it was 1999 when this was written, though, so the norms for online reviews had not yet been established.
I'd call this an analysis more than a review. Whatever you think it is, I found it a pretty honest and open piece coming from someone who has such a personal stake in the book.
The problem with Scott Card is that he substitutes proper character development with "let's make all the characters naive children who eventually realize all the adults are manipulative". Its a total copout, and he doesn't just do it wth the ender books. Oh yeah, that and his crazy is often showing...
The point of Ender's Game was to explore the notion of the ideal human. Ender's shadow also addressed that topic. The adults merely represent forces beyond the protagonists' control, as most adults are in books featuring child characters.
The process of character development is one in which the children discover their own nature and the natures of those around them. The reader is intended to ask him/herself which nature is "best" and to thus view a difficult and opaque moral question with the clarity of comparing a group of friends. Quite ingenious, especially when you consider that this is a children's book. I challenge you to find a more insightful novel of ideas with equivalent appeal to the same young demographic.
I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card
Can't we make distinctions between the guy's philosophy and his writing? I for one do not feel the book (or any book) is diminished by my perception of the author as a person.
We're talking about someone who writes stuff like this:
"The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.
[...]
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
(Source: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html)
And there's a lot of similar-level, oddly familiar sounding looneyness in his writings on various other political topics as well. It's perhaps most disturbing - or fascinating - that a writer as articulate would be content to be such a cliché. At times I wonder if it's all an act.