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

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

#101

Post by r00fus » Thu, May 26, 2011, 5:58 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.

Which is likely due to the style choice as OSC mentions in his self-book-review.

Personally, having read it at an early age, I found the science part of the sci-fi to be very captivating and philosophy to be interesting.

From a sci-fi historiology perspective, you can see parts of the Bradbury style space-as-wild-west, while also some of the Gibson-esqe interconnected computing. I also found that the philosophy of the ansible to be related to some of Philip K Dick's warped sense of reality books.

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

#102

Post by cookiecaper » Thu, May 26, 2011, 6:36 AM UTC

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #46

araneae wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"Homophobic" gets bandied about to the point of losing its meaning. "Unreasoning fear/antipathy towards homosexuals/homosexuality" is what the dictionary spat out, and I suspect Card would say 1) it's not "unreasoning" 2)"antipathy towards homosexuality" != "evil."

I agree that the application of the word "homophobe" does not fit with its etymology. Are these people actually afraid of homosexuals, like a person with aracnophobia is afraid of spiders, or do they just disagree with some social positions, like the appropriate context and meaning of state endorsement and support for a relationship? It seems that anyone who doesn't take the envelope the gay rights people are pushing is suddenly an illogical homophobe, afraid that buttsex is going to bite and poison them.

Even an argument that homosexuality altogether is immoral and should not be socially acceptable behavior is not the same thing as being afraid of persons that perform homosexual acts; it's merely ostracizing the behavior, as one may ostracize a person for meth use, though it'd be silly to call one that supports meth prohibition a dopephobe just because he doesn't think meth use should become a social norm.

You can dislike a behavior without fearing it, and you can have rational reasons for that dislike. The term "homophobe" is applied to try and stop people from criticizing the gay rights agenda by labeling them as irrational bigots if any protest is raised.

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

#103

Post by Kadin » Thu, May 26, 2011, 6:43 AM UTC

saraid216 wrote: post #43

mcritz wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I felt similarly. “Why not write a blog post?” I thought.

A blog post in 1999 is asking a little much.

IIRC Orson Scott Card had his own area on AOL in the mid 90s, and possibly earlier. Not sure when he moved to the big-boy Internet but the name is the same, "Hatrack River".

It wasn't a 'blog' per se, more of a forum, I think ... I only dropped in once or twice and my recollection was that the discussion was (at the time) more about his religion than about his writing.

But if he'd just wanted to speak to fans he's certainly had an outlet to do so for a long time, and had it at the time the review was written. Presumably he chose to write the response in the form of an Amazon review consciously, and not for want of some other venue.

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

#104

Post by riffraff » Thu, May 26, 2011, 7:23 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #47

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 had the same experience with Watership Down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down I was set to read it when I was 14 or 15 in English. What 14 or 15 yo boy wants to read a book about a rabbit? I was wrong, and loved it, then went and read every other book Richard Adams wrote. So I guess it's not impossible , but at the same time I was probably broad minded enough to change my mind. Many people won't.

OT, but I can't thank you enough. I read part of this book as a kid in my school antology, loved it butn ever read all of it. Now that I know it's name I can go and fix that missing part of my life :)

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

#105

Post by rogerbraun » Thu, May 26, 2011, 7:31 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #64

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…

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.

He does not want to give you advice on which sexual partner to pick. He thinks that it should be forbidden by law to be homosexual. There is nothing about this in "Ender's Game", to get back to the topic. So, while I think it is right to criticize Card for his views on sexuality, I don't think it should color one's reading of the book too much.

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

#106

Post by nandemo » Thu, May 26, 2011, 8:47 AM UTC

Entaroadun wrote: post #99

nandemo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I wish I could collapse down a subthread a la reddit.

Ah, but you can. :) https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bbkfcamiocfccgmcjn...

Thanks. I normally use Firefox but I might end up using Chrome just for HN.

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

#107

Post by starwed » Thu, May 26, 2011, 11:23 AM UTC

icarus_drowning wrote: post #45

starwed wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then again, Ender's Game included the general idea of blogs as a plot point ... (Not sure what else you would classify Peter/Valentine's self-published online essays as.)

Aren't they explicitly described as forum postings?

Yeah, they were using some use-net like technology to post, since the web wasn't really around when the book was written.

I'd argue they carried the same social role as blogs. To me, the key vision is that online, self-published essays could be widely read and influential.

-edit- Actually referencing the book, they do eventually become part of "newsnets", being paid for their work and gaining a wider audience.

It also describes them using temporary anonymous accounts, injecting deliberately inflammatory comments into discussions to provoke a response. >_>

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

#108

Post by nl » Thu, May 26, 2011, 11:34 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #97

william42 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

«Sure, card is a Mormon and appears somewhat socially conservative in his personal beliefs.» Not just «somewhat», he believes that armed insurrection is justified as a response to gay marriage: «Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary.» see http://www.mormo…

This is plainly a opinion piece written to support the Mormon's role in defeating proposition 8 (gay marriage) in California in 2008 (note the date of the article). That role was controversial, see [1], and Card is supporting it here. We don't need to stoop to the level of playing dirty politics by taking things out of context in HN. Card's attitudes to homosexuality is enough without accusing him of things it's pret…

Why the downvotes?

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

#109

Post by nl » Thu, May 26, 2011, 11:35 AM UTC

riffraff wrote: post #104

nl wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same experience with Watership Down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down I was set to read it when I was 14 or 15 in English. What 14 or 15 yo boy wants to read a book about a rabbit? I was wrong, and loved it, then went and read every other book Richard Adams wrote. So I guess it's not impossible , but at the same time I was probably broad minded enough to change my mind. Many people won't.

OT, but I can't thank you enough. I read part of this book as a kid in my school antology, loved it butn ever read all of it. Now that I know it's name I can go and fix that missing part of my life :)

Always glad to be of service :)

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

#110

Post by pohl » Thu, May 26, 2011, 1:05 PM UTC

patrickgzill wrote: post #82

telemachos wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You say, "He is clearly not homophobic." In the interview, Card says "I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that's being attempted" (emphasis mine). Calling homosexuality "de…

I think that a relatively sane viewpoint would cover the idea that being black is not something the person chooses to become, while engaging in homosexual behavior is very clearly a lifestyle choice; given that there is genetic coding for whether you are black or not, but no coding for homosexuality.

While there are many choices that all people make in the sphere of sexuality, choosing who lights your fire is not one of them. I can no more choose to find men sexually attractive than I can choose to not find sugar sweet.