The Apolyton Science Fiction Book Club: Ender's Game

[JohnT]

Book: Ender's Game
Author: Orson Scott Card
Published: 1977 (short story), 1985 (novel).
Copyright: Orson Scott Card

Synopsis:

After a couple of brutal attacks by another interstellar species known as "the bugs", the human race rushes to develop a program for breeding military geniuses. Due to their flexibility and ability to adapt, children are brought into the Battle School at a very early age as to begin their military preparation.

Ender's Game is the story of Andrew (Ender) Wiggin, the Alexander the Great of the Bugger Wars, a child who was brought into the Battle School at a very early age, mastered the art of War as no other has, and finally practices and hones his craft on a battle simulator which is, in reality, anything but.

Ender also has a pair of siblings, Peter (the oldest and a very cruel child) and Valentine (the middle child, a girl who loved Ender and feared Peter). Ender's Game also concerns itself with their story, and how they came to dominate the worlds political scene.

Praise for this novel is pretty universal, and for good reason: it is one of those rare (in SF at least) novels where victory does not bring happiness, and self-exploration doesn't bring peace. It won both the Nebula and the Hugo award in the same year, being one of a few novels in the history of the genre to do so (along with The Left Hand of Darkness, Ringworld, and the sequel to Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead.)

[Static Universe]

This is a book I've taken a pass on reading several times over the past decade or so. Once I actually had a copy in my possession, and threw it away!*

I have to admit this is an excellent novel. Kudos on its nomination and selection. Not sure if I completely buy into the actual details of the Peter-rise-to-power sub-plot, but on the whole I give it a .

The copy I read was the "Definitive Author's Edition." I'm curious as to what other editions of this book exist, and what changes may or may not have been made to it. Anybody know?

Also, it was interesting to see a sci-fi book written by what appears to be a practicing Morman. I'm not sure I've ever had that experience.




* The anecdote: In the U.S. Army in 94, I was deployed to Panama to guard Cuban refugee camps. The USO, or somebody, sent down several boxes of books for the soldiers, and "Ender's Game" was one of the books. It sat in its box for several weeks, until I plucked it out, along with a copy of "Catch-22", which I had already read several times before. I walked about twenty yards/meteres, looked at the cover of "Ender's Game" and said to myself "This looks stupid." Then I tossed it into a nearby trashcan rather than walk back and return it to the boxes. In those days, I was generally of the opinion that things that were unworthy of my attention were also unworthy of existence.

[gunkulator]

I concur that Ender's Game is excellent. I admit to being floored by the ending. I also agree that the whole Peter plot is a bit contrived, however Card has written additional novels to flesh out that story line a bit more.

While I liked Ender's Game a lot, I've enjoyed each of the sequels less and less. IMHO, Card is not-so-subtlely sneaking Mormon theology into his stories as a kind of deus ex machina for his heroes.

[Eli]

Not sure if I completely buy into the actual details of the Peter-rise-to-power sub-plot

Try reading the last three books in the series.

While I liked Ender's Game a lot, I've enjoyed each of the sequels less and less.

Xenocide and Speaker for the dead were more deep(read: boring), but the "Bean Saga" is even better than Ender's Game IMO.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Eli

Xenocide and Speaker for the dead were more deep(read: boring), but the "Bean Saga" is even better than Ender's Game IMO.

I agree. I did not like Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead that much but I really liked Ender's Shadow. Reading that in conjunction with Ender's Game is interesting as several events are told from different points of view. The last one, Shadow of the Hegemon was also pretty good.

[gunkulator]

I like the Bean stories better than Speaker and Xenocide but to me they have that "Back To The Future Part II" feel. Also, the character of Bean is turning out to be even more of an ubermensh than Ender was which IMO makes makes the stories just a bit too predictable.

[Static Universe]

While I buy into the advanced state of Ender character and most of the other children in the book, I'm finding the Bean character just slightly too precocious and "irrepressible" to be believable. I hate spunk*. I think Alai would have been a much more believable second for Ender, had Card chosen to go in that direction.

Peter is perhaps too knowledgeable as well, but I'm willing to suspend disbelief here, as his character serves as an evil counterpoint. Plus, I love a good bad guy.

For the most part, I think Card handles children characters well, although I think he could have toned it down a bit in certain areas.

Card indicates in his introduction that children respond very positively to this book. Do you think that the children you know would find this book believable?

*Swiped line

[Zero]

I didnt like speaker for the dead as much but xenocide was pretty good.

Howerver there should be no doubt ender's game is the best.

[reismark]

The Bean series is more compelling than the Ender series, largely because Xenocide and Children of the Mind are not worthy to have the Ender name, and because Peter Wiggin is one of my true literary guilty pleasures (and he has much more to do in the Bean series, for obvious reasons).

Ender's Game, though, stands tall as the best of the seven (and probably eventually eight).

[ranskaldan]

ENDER! ENDER! ENDER!

Among the better books I've read recently.

I found the next three books of the Ender series somewhat tiring, though I'm quite sure that I'll enjoy them a lot more if I went back and read them more carefully. And the Shadow series was interesting in its own right.

Sigh... I have a craving to go back and read those things again.... :/

[monolith94]

The last one, Children of the Mind I believe - I really like that one, although the middle two were a bit... tedious...
<3 Bean!

[Nubclear]

The book was boring. It just seemed too forced and unlikely.

[Wraith]

--"I admit to being floored by the ending."

You know, the book gets pretty thin when you get close to the end...



Haven't read the series past Speaker, actually.

--"Do you think that the children you know would find this book believable?"

I think that the children I know would have trouble figuring out which way up to hold the book. A couple of the children I knew wouldn't find it believable mostly because they wouldn't be convinced there were that many smart people in the world.

But that's just public schooling for you.

Wraith
"Now dance for your diplomat! Dance! Now Riverdance!"
-- Dogbert ("Dilbert")

[St Leo]

I found Card's excuse for the low female contingent ("centuries of evolution working against them") very flimsy considering that I am not exactly sure which evolutionary change Card was referring to. Ender's sister didn't strike me as atypically brilliant and the actual job requirements didn't involve being able to crush beer cans with your elbow joints.

[Wraith]

--"I am not exactly sure which evolutionary change Card was referring to."

I think he's referring to aggresiveness. In which case he's never seen how vicious a group of women can be to someone they don't like, but it is a different sort of aggresiveness than what usually goes into a war...

Wraith
"I love you cold, unfeeling robot arm."
-- Zim ("Invader Zim")

[Ramo]

Ender's Game is vastly overrated IMO. It's not a bad book, it just wasn't all that great. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. Speaker and Xenocide were better though.

[JohnT]

"For the most part, I think Card handles children characters well, although I think he could have toned it down a bit in certain areas."

Children characters? There were children in this book? Where?*

No, what you had were really short, really young adults. I don't think that any of the characters in this book acted like children - I don't care how smart you are, even 6 year old geniuses do not understand psychology to the degree that Ender used it in his initial fight with Stillson.

And the idea that two children can come to dominate the worlds political scene ala Peter and Valentine is, well, preposterous. I don't know any adults who can consistantly and believably argue against their own beliefs and nature, much less do so to such an extent as to rise to power based upon this falsity**.

Card doesn't handle children well at all - what he does is have child-aged characters act like adults, which, frankly, is kind of pathetic. But this is something that is quite common in science fiction - the molding of different types of people so that they all sound adult and male. As I'm sitting here, the only believable children as children in science fiction that I can remember*** is in Vernor Vinge's A Fire upon the Deep. Yes, they were smart, but they were also helpless and knowledgable of their own limitations because of their relative immaturity.

*I'm speaking of EG only, as I have yet to read the sequels.
**Is that a word?
***I'm sure there are others. Any suggestions?

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by JohnT
"For the most part, I think Card handles children characters well, although I think he could have toned it down a bit in certain areas."

Children characters? There were children in this book? Where?*

No, what you had were really short, really young adults. I don't think that any of the characters in this book acted like children - I don't care how smart you are, even 6 year old geniuses do not understand psychology to the degree that Ender used it in his initial fight with Stillson.

I think there are children-like characters in the novel, but for the most part they unfortunatey are not the main characters.

Would you not say it is possible for a child to make the sort of psychological calculations Ender made, at least on the subconscious level? The fact that Card articulates within Ender's mind makes them seem less than likely, but is that really true? Surely children understand that if they are bullied, they must win the fight or continue to be bullied.

It's no stretch to think that a genius would realize he had to win it big, especially given the torture he endured under Peter. And given that Valentine seems to hint at sexual molestation by Peter, I'm not sure why she follows him so readily, given her genius state.

And the idea that two children can come to dominate the worlds political scene ala Peter and Valentine is, well, preposterous. I don't know any adults who can consistantly and believably argue against their own beliefs and nature, much less do so to such an extent as to rise to power based upon this falsity**.

Yes, I think this subplot was unnecessary, if not downright ludicrous. Beyond ludicrous, in fact. Ender was at least believable because he had the battle school to shape his mind. But how does Peter go from torturing squirrels to conceiving and executing such a plan? It does not follow.

Card doesn't handle children well at all - what he does is have child-aged characters act like adults, which, frankly, is kind of pathetic. But this is something that is quite common in science fiction - the molding of different types of people so that they all sound adult and male. As I'm sitting here, the only believable children as children in science fiction that I can remember*** is in Vernor Vinge's A Fire upon the Deep. Yes, they were smart, but they were also helpless and knowledgable of their own limitations because of their relative immaturity.

I think most authors don't handle children well, but science fiction is a genre particularly unsuited to dealing with them, as the only place they typically have in these novels is as "advanced" children a la Ender, or Alia from Dune.

I really can't think of a sci-fi novel that handles children well, but I hace no children of my own, and don't really care from them in the first place, so perhaps I am a poor judge.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by St Leo
I found Card's excuse for the low female contingent ("centuries of evolution working against them") very flimsy considering that I am not exactly sure which evolutionary change Card was referring to. Ender's sister didn't strike me as atypically brilliant and the actual job requirements didn't involve being able to crush beer cans with your elbow joints.

Perhaps as a devout Morman, Card has trouble seeing a woman in a leadership role.

[Jon Miller]

I am sort of surprised about the direction that this thread has turned

I would be more interested in a discussion of som eof the psych issues dealt with int he book

Jon Miller

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am sort of surprised about the direction that this thread has turned

I would be more interested in a discussion of som eof the psych issues dealt with int he book

What are your thoughts on the psychological issues addressed in the book?

[mactbone]

Actually I'm interested in the literary aspect - this book was originally a short story (which I have not read) and then expanded to this. I'm wondering what the differences are.

Was the whole "battle is real" thing foreshadowed a lot and obvious or did I jump the gun? I don't remember if there were clues in the book or I remember someone talking about it but when it was finally explained it seemed incredibly obvious.

Which was your favorite part of the book? Favorite narrator (or third person)?

I really liked the military guy in charge of Ender (forgive me - I read the series over Winter Break and can't remember who the name). The best parts to me were the descriptions of tactics and the deep pschyological stuff going on with Ender and the game.

BTW, I hate Bean with a passion when Card decides to change the entire meaning of Ender's Game. Seriously, you might as well not read Ender's Game if the Bean Chronicles are the "true" intrepretations that Card implies. I liked some of the themes from the rest of the series and found the planetary sytem very plausible.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by MacTBone

Was the whole "battle is real" thing foreshadowed a lot and obvious or did I jump the gun? I don't remember if there were clues in the book or I remember someone talking about it but when it was finally explained it seemed incredibly obvious.

I guessed shortly before the end, but I knew there was a surprise ending so I was looking for it. But really I wouldn't say it was a big "Crying Game" kind of twist, and it actually made a lot of sense. On the other hand, it was a pretty big risk to take, as Ender could have quit the game at anytime not thinking it was real.

Of course, he never quit games, but still...

Which was your favorite part of the book? Favorite narrator (or third person)?

I liked the Razer Mackham character. I thought it was quite inventive to have him show up as Ender's final teacher. Plus, I'm a sucker for the old "character you thought long dead shows up alive" kind of thing.

I really liked the military guy in charge of Ender (forgive me - I read the series over Winter Break and can't remember who the name). The best parts to me were the descriptions of tactics and the deep pschyological stuff going on with Ender and the game.

You mean Graff? I liked this character as well. I feel he genuinely cared about Ender, but had to do what was necessary to save the human race. He became quite a sympathetic character toward the end.

BTW, I hate Bean with a passion when Card decides to change the entire meaning of Ender's Game. Seriously, you might as well not read Ender's Game if the Bean Chronicles are the "true" intrepretations that Card implies. I liked some of the themes from the rest of the series and found the planetary sytem very plausible.

I'm reading Ender's Shadow now. While it's an enjoyable book, I'm rapidly begining to hate Bean. I hated him before, but now I really, really hate him.

[Jon Miller]

sometimes when authors (either the original or others) go back to old work and expand on it

it seems as if they are writing a different story

it seems to be the same with this one unforunately

as for what my thoughts are, I don't have the time right now to lead a converation, so I will chime in if people start getting into psych/ethics/morality

Jon Miller

[JohnT]

"Would you not say it is possible for a child to make the sort of psychological calculations Ender made, at least on the subconscious level? The fact that Card articulates within Ender's mind makes them seem less than likely, but is that really true? Surely children understand that if they are bullied, they must win the fight or continue to be bullied."

Children are capable of all sort of involved psychological calculations - even my 18 month-old daughter "plays" me and her mother differently. I even will allow that the sort of consideration that Ender gave Stillson might be possible by a 6 year old, but I doubt that a child, any child, would be able to articulate it in the manner that Ender did. But perhaps that's just a limitation of the medium and not the author.

[JohnT]

Mac: I, too, guessed the ending before the ending. But it was not because Card dropped clues (he could've but I missed them if he did), but rather my thought processes went like this:

"I thought this was a self-contained novel? We're about 50 pages from the end and the kid is still in Battle School playing on the simulator... oh, wait."

I, too, liked the Mackham character. When done with the book, I was actually more interested in what Peter had done than what Ender accomplished. Perhaps I oughtta tackle the sequels after all.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by JohnT

But perhaps that's just a limitation of the medium and not the author.

I would agree that it is. I think Card is trying really hard to present children accurately here, unlike a writer like say J.D. Salenger who presents them as he wishes them to be.

And I hate Bean.

[Static Universe]

Are there any Morman ideas in this book? I didn't notice any, but reading Ender's Shadow, it definitely seems like a few get passed off in that book. Not that I'm any expert of Mormanism.

[St Leo]

And given that Valentine seems to hint at sexual molestation by Peter, I'm not sure why she follows him so readily, given her genius state.

Wha; wha; wha? I am normally the first (and sometimes only) one to notice things like that. What hints?

Was the whole "battle is real" thing foreshadowed a lot and obvious or did I jump the gun?

I had read Ender's Shadow about a year before this, so I knew what was coming.

unlike a writer like say J.D. Salenger who presents them as he wishes them to be.
And I hate Bean.

I hate Salinger. Bean's a swell chap.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by St Leo
And given that Valentine seems to hint at sexual molestation by Peter, I'm not sure why she follows him so readily, given her genius state.

Wha; wha; wha? I am normally the first (and sometimes only) one to notice things like that. What hints?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but here is the relevant passage I'm referring to (p241 of the paperback):

"When you were little and Peter tortured you, it's a good thing I didn't lie back and wait for Mom and Dad to save you. They never understood how dangerous Peter was. I knew you had the monitor, but I didn't wait for them , either. Do you know what Peter used to do to me because I stopped him from hurting you?"

"Shut up," Ender whispered.