Well, he'll be 11 in another couple of weeks. But yeah, I figure if he's like the rest of us, he'll probably re-read it over and over in later years and get more out of it each time.
BTW, I love your dog. Looks almost like mine.
I don't think I've ever felt this proud.
- Thread starter TJinLOCA
- Start date
BTW, I love your dog. Looks almost like mine.
I understand where you're coming from, but, as someone who read Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead long before being aware that Card lived in fuckwit territory, the books really don't come across as having been crafted by an intolerant bigot. If anything, Speaker for the Dead is the exact opposite, a moving plea for compassion and tolerance wrapped in a tragedy about how horrible things happen to good people (and alien species).
I don't know, maybe his first novels and his current political blogs were written by two different Orson Scott Cards.
He was a young man when he conceived Ender's Game-- and "Speaker for the Dead" was conceived even before that (he's stated that Ender's Game was really a prequel to the book he wanted to write). I haven't read his political blogs. Could you link to one that seems out of the author's character or that would earn him the title "fuckwit?"
Anyway, I don't know how you can read Ender's Game and not see a thinly vieled neorealism in every political passage. I would never have expected Scott-Card to be a modern liberal Democrat.
Try any of his number of anti-Gay marriage writings.
He thinly brought elements of real life to his fiction?
Try any of his number of anti-Gay marriage writings.
He thinly brought elements of real life to his fiction?
Neorealism (IR)
"Neorealism holds that the international structure is defined by its ordering principle, which is anarchy, and by the distribution of capabilities, measured by the number of great powers within the international system. The anarchic ordering principle of the international structure is decentralized, having no formal central authority, and is composed of formally equal sovereign states. These states act according to the logic of self-help--states seek their own interest and will not subordinate their interest to another's."
As for the gay marriage posts, the one I read was at least thought out (since he is namely criticizing activist judges who legislate from the bench)-- as a supporter of gay marriage, this method of pursuing it has always concerned me. Even so, it feels like I'm reading a Rush Limbaugh manuscript and THAT surprises me.
Whoa, that guy is seriously screwed up. How do people like that get involved in Science Fiction? 
Whoa, that guy is seriously screwed up. How do people like that get involved in Science Fiction?
I wasn't aware there was an entrance exam to get involved in science fiction.
Whoa, that guy is seriously screwed up. How do people like that get involved in Science Fiction?
Because he likes science fiction.
Whoa, that guy is seriously screwed up. How do people like that get involved in Science Fiction?
One expects people involved in writing or reading Science Fiction to be more progressive and rational than the average person. Of course, I've been disillusioned about that before....Whoa, that guy is seriously screwed up. How do people like that get involved in Science Fiction?
Because he likes science fiction.
There's no reason to assume technological progress or movement through time must correlate to progressive liberal views. It's nice to think that, but why would it need to be that way? I'm sure conservatives and religious types are just as interested in imagining the future as anyone else, seeing as they'll be living there too.
Well, most, if not all, of the SF I read growing up either presented a Utopian future as a model or a Dystopian future as a warning. All of the essays that I read by the SF authors were reasoned and rational and Humanistic.
The editorial I read from the links that you Posted was a blathering, insane tirade that sounded like it came from Talk Radio. I wouldn't expect that person to be able to compose a postcard, let alone a novel. And if he did, I'd expect it to be along the lines of The Turner Diaries, not Science Fiction.
The editorial I read from the links that you Posted was a blathering, insane tirade that sounded like it came from Talk Radio. I wouldn't expect that person to be able to compose a postcard, let alone a novel. And if he did, I'd expect it to be along the lines of The Turner Diaries, not Science Fiction.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Plus, I suspect that the parts of people's brains that plot out books are not the same parts that write essays or talk about politics. Stephen King has, on more than one occasion, mentioned his horror at meeting famous authors, creators of profound and compassionate writings, and discovering that they're massive dicks. So there's some evidence there for a philosophical/creative disconnect.
As I said, I've been disillusioned before. Mostly, I suppose, because the types of authors I gravitated toward as a young were along the lines of Clarke, Asimov, et al.
That's really all I intended when I started this thread ... although I should have known that mentioning Card would start a firestorm of comments about his despicable politics. My bad.
Eh, people need to relax-- don't apologize. They sound like Limbaugh fans when they talk of avoiding a work of art because of somebody's political/social views. I may not be a fan of Scientology, but it doesn't keep me from appreciating Tom Cruise movies and his craft. The same goes for countless others.
What I don't like about Orson Scott-Card is his disdain for all things "Star Trek"
.
I wish I'd seen that.Similar threads
