Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game • Hacker News Board

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#61

Post by grandalf » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:39 AM UTC

araneae wrote: post #37

grandalf wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author misunderstands what Card is trying to say in response to her questions. Also, she evidently misunderstood Ender's Game quite a bit as well. Ender was suited to be a brilliant military commander precisely because he hated killing so much. A more bloodthirsty commander would have fallen for certain traps, committed certain errors of judgment that Ender was immune to. The nuance here is that Ender's strategic…

I would take issue with your view that Card isn't homophobic. From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" by Orson Scott Card: "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 to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitte…

I'd need to read the whole article before knowing for sure how to react to that paragraph, as it appears to be part of a reductio ad absurdum -- that one would have to claim that society ought to have no laws whatsoever limiting sexual behavior in order to refute his point. This might explain his emphasis on laws, which usually boils down to an argument lauding the democratic process that got us those laws, while taking a more skeptical view on the laws themselves.

I think the issue of employment discrimination is a bit of a straw man. If an employee isn't working out he/she will be fired eventually for some reason. If a firm's corporate culture is homophobic, chances are there will be some technicality that allows for the firing of an individual in spite of any laws restricting hiring/firing reasons. I think this applies to all such laws "protecting" any group.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#62

Post by grandalf » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:41 AM UTC

stonemetal wrote: post #50

grandalf wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are equivalent b/c both are simply aesthetic preferences. Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. Neither is an expert on the topic being opined about. At best one might claim that such a statement is ignorant. I think we start to get into trouble when we assume that an expert in one narrow area (such as fiction writing) should be/act non-ignorant in other areas of life. T…

Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. He wishes to make it illegal how is that not pushing his views on others?

Citation?

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#63

Post by hugh3 » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:42 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #54

pitdesi wrote: post #5

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

This is a textbook terrible HN comment. It sources what may be the single worst literary interview ever conducted (the author interviews herself snickering at her subject) to illuminate the worst-kept secret in all sci-fi fandom (that Orson Scott Card is a devout socially conservative Mormon), all in service of the conclusion that social conservatives are "terrible" people. NOTHING GOOD CAN CONCEIVABLY COME OF THE EN…

Well said, tptacek, well said.

As soon as I saw Orson Scott Card's name come up, I knew the conversation would devolve into his (wacky) political views.

There's now 59 comments on this thread, and while I haven't bothered to count it seems that at least 45 of 'em are in this rather dull political argument about gay rights. And since nobody has actually showed up with the anti-gay-rights position, we're stuck discussing precisely which nasty names we should call someone who doesn't share our mutual opinion. Even this rather narrow corner of debate space has apparently got some people rather heated.

And yet, there I am too, throwing my weight in on this boring topic. And this is why politics is something one must actively avoid talking about.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#64

Post by grandalf » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:43 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #60

burgerbrain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preferred pizza toppings are in no way comparable to homophobic statements.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer. Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1]. But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire. I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their oth…

Excellent point. I chose Jobs and bland opinions b/c I give equally low weight to someone's non-expert opinions no matter what domain they are in.

Do I want to ask Jobs or Card or Fischer for voting advice? No thanks. For advice on what sexual partner to pick? No thanks. It's the premise that we should somehow look to these achievers for wisdom outside their domains that is absurd.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#65

Post by nhebb » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:44 AM UTC

I found that the less I put on the stage, the more the audience would imagine a much more compelling set than I could ever build

Analogous to Card's statement, lately I've come to realize that I like movies better when they don't explicitly tell you everything. I think a good formula for writing is to lay all the facts out, then remove one or two of them from the script.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#66

Post by chernevik » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:45 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #55

michaeldhopkins wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't want this recursion to apply to you too. Saying a person who says someone is terrible is terrible puts you next in line. Fortunately for both of us I don't think you're terrible, just a little too excited to dislike someone.

You know what? I think I'm actually alright with someone thinking that I am terrible because I think that outspoken homophobes are terrible. Yeah, I am pretty sure that doesn't concern me in the slightest. Edit: fixed stupid corrective spelling thing...

Is that because you are willing to fight it out? Or because you think you've got the people with the "wrong" opinions well out-numbered?

Use your imagination and consider circumstances where people with the "right" opinions are outnumbered, and considered dangerous. I _hope_ that I'd be saying the right things in Berlin 1935, or Richmond 1855, or Birmingham 1958, or Moscow 1920 - 1985. But I'm damn sure I'd be _concerned_ about the reaction to those remarks.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#67

Post by hugh3 » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:48 AM UTC

andrewvc wrote: post #4

I'll just point out that the thing I didn't like about enders game was that the book felt too monotone. It has a great twist at the end, but everything leading up to it is linear, predictable, and while initially exciting, quickly becomes uninteresting.

I think that Ender's Game is one of those books whose appeal is largely independent of its literary merits. The people who love it really love it because they identify with it, it speaks to them, and if you don't identify with it then it's just some random okay sort of sci-fi story about space battles.

I never really identified with it, but maybe if I'd read it at twelve instead of 24 then I would have. (Though I'm kinda glad I didn't.)

I say this not to disparage the book. A fairly well-written book that speaks to a lot of people is much better than a very well-crafted book that speaks to nobody (I'm looking at you, Mr Joyce). And I'm sure there are relatively crappy works of art that I like just because I identify with 'em. But Ender's Game is just one of those love-it-or-go-meh-at-it books.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#68

Post by burgerbrain » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:50 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #60

burgerbrain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Preferred pizza toppings are in no way comparable to homophobic statements.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer. Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1]. But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire. I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their oth…

I don't believe its all that hard to respect Bobby Fischer's chess (while despising everything else about him), while at the same time failing to respect Scott Card in general.

Unlike chessplayers, authors play an important role in society by creating literature for that society to consume. They therefore, in my opinion, should be examined with more scrutiny.^ The fact that people hold up Ender's Game as a work with particular ethical/moral significance only strengthens my belief that we must hold Scott Card to a higher level.

But hey, this is just how I operate. For each their own I suppose.

^particularly when they start using their talent to spread their hate, and start letting it seep into their other 'manstream' work.

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#69

Post by GrantS » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:52 AM UTC

chc wrote: post #22

ab9 wrote: post #21

"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 was actually a hostile reader the first time I read Ender's Game . I was totally turned off by the horrible cover and not very interested in reading it, but it was assigned for school, so I read it and it became one of my favorite books.

The original Ender's Game series covers are some of the best science fiction art I've ever seen, by an amazing artist named John Harris (examples below). Did your edition have a different cover?

Ender's Game: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_... Speaker for the Dead: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_... Children of the Mind: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_...

More art by John Harris here (not my blog): http://colorcubic.com/2010/09/07/the-science-fiction-art-of-...

Re: Orson Scott Card's Amazon Review of Ender's Game

#70

Post by grandalf » Thu, May 26, 2011, 2:03 AM UTC

burgerbrain wrote: post #68

nl wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps a better comparison would be with Bobby Fischer. Fischer idolized Hitler, denied the Holocaust, was antisemitic and wrote fanmail to Osama bin Laden[1]. But the same Bobby Fischer played beautiful chess that it's impossible not to admire. I don't have a good philosophical framework to process how I can admire the beauty of Fischer's play (and Card's writing) and yet disagree incredibly strongly with their oth…

I don't believe its all that hard to respect Bobby Fischer's chess (while despising everything else about him), while at the same time failing to respect Scott Card in general. Unlike chessplayers, authors play an important role in society by creating literature for that society to consume. They therefore, in my opinion, should be examined with more scrutiny.^ The fact that people hold up Ender's Game as a work with…

Many would say the same about athletes... What professions do you think play such an important role that they should be judged for their personal political views rather than for the biproduct of their professional work?

While I agree that Card's views on homosexuality are disturbing, stupid, and quite shocking considering the considerable depth with which he appears (from his fiction writing) to understand difficult moral issues around demonizing members of a group, I think this is a dangerous precedent to set. Sure it'd be nice, but I think the consequence is inevitably that we are disillusioned b/c of some skeleton that is revealed (Tiger woods) or we prop up untalented hacks who happen to express all the right views (like Stephen Colbert, whose comedy is at best a crude sort of clowning).