Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So I have a question. Would Ender's Game be more acceptable if OSC was dead and not activity spewing his bile?
If he was dead we could dismiss his views as being a product of history, of course we can dismiss his views as being a product of his location now.
Does it become easier to view the art as separate from the artist over time?
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to TracyMac,
As for the “geeks = super cool” in terms of their acceptance of queers, eh, I think maybe the “we are awesome liberals” type are – as in, they go beyond “tolerance” to acceptance.
I think it is that a lot of geek culture causes people to have their preconceptions challenged. It doesn't mean entrenched homophobic geeks will change their minds but it does mean that someone who hasn't noticed casual homophobia around them might have that homophobia cast into stark relief by the books/comics/films they encounter.
Geek culture can cause people to think about and question things.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to TracyMac,
love Firefly; Buffy, I simply don’t get
I have friends who are insane Buffy fans. Maybe it's because I've never watched many episodes in sequence but I've never found the program anything other than mildly entertaining.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to Emma Hart,
finding that an artist whose work you love has a life or politics you can admire
How many copies of Serenity and Firefly do I have to buy to balance out my copy of Ender's Game?
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to Emma Hart,
a bunch of Heinlein’s other work
It almost amazing how bad some of his work is in every sense. Yet other pieces show he had real talent.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to Emma Hart,
So, yeah, I think we agree that we read it differently, and that both readings are perfectly possible from the text?
Yup. I tried not to say the essay was wrong just that their conclusions from the book and mine were utterly different.
And yes I can completely see how you would/could read it that way.
And I honestly have no idea which way is correct, if any.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to Emma Hart,
He’s “innocent” not in terms of feeling guilty, but in terms of culpability. You’re supposed to feel sorry for Ender, and perceive him as a victim. What the essay is saying is that Card posits a world where people are inherently either “good” or “bad”, and that matters more than their actions.
Yeah I get that. What I'm saying is that even if that was what OSC intended, that wasn't what I read. So either OSC didn't intend that or OSC failed (with me at least).
I read Ender as both aware of, and party to, what he was being trained to do - an inherently evil act. I read him as flawed and not inherently good. For me that was the value of the book, instead of the cardboard Heinlein hero, he was not "good at heart". That others around him excused his actions as being a result of their manipulation of him was, to me, a fascinating denial on their part of the fact that they really did have a psychopath on their hands. Sure they manipulated him but equally he was a participant, he couldn't be anything other. How were we as the reader meant to believe that Ender was a tactical and strategic genius and also to believe that he wasn't aware of their manipulation. That he copies their manipulation of him when he manipulates Bean just rams his awareness home. It is those layers of deception that make the book for me. To read Ender as "manipulated but inherently good" is to miss the whole point of the psychopath as warrior. It dismisses his intellect. He is the ultimate gamer and as such he must be aware of the games being played with him.
At least that is how I read it. Hence my response that the essayist read the book utterly differently.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to Emma Hart,
He doesn’t, and I don’t think that’s what the essay is saying.
No that is what the essay is saying. It is very clear about the fact that Ender's actions (abhorent) are acceptable because Ender didn't know. It is that dichotomy that the essayist objects to. But it is inconceivable that Ender doesn't know, regardless of any internal monologue. Hence my reading of the book was utterly different, at no time did I believe that Ender believed he was innocent, hence his actions were never those of an innocent.
I did read beyond the first three, I even read some of his later works - there is little of value after Ender's Game and nothing of value after the first series.
-
Up Front: Card on the Table, in reply to James Butler,
I recommend this essay.
I read that and thought "wow this person read the book(s) totally differently from me"
I never thought Ender believed himself to be innocent. Even in my first reading of the book I felt (who knows how) that Ender knew exactly what he did to his victims. To me it was the internal conflict within Ender that was compelling in the book, that he was neither innocent nor hero made the book more than a simple Heinlen.
/shrug
-
I'm torn. I loathe OSC and his opinions. Yet I still love Ender's Game. As a book, as a story and as the SF book I recommend to anyone who "doesn't read SF". The sequels were less compelling and anything he wrote after that series is just plain aweful. But Ender's Game is both a great read and great SF, regardless of the author, the book he created is IMO worthwhile. And a movie that matched the book could also be worthwhile.
I also think the cast of the movie is great, full of actors I usually enjoy watching perform. They could easily mess up the film as is the case with any SF but it could also be a good film, it could even be a great film (yeah right).
But I don't want to give money to people like OSC.
To be fair, since I rarely watch movies untill they are cheap on Blu-ray I wouldn't be giving him much money, but your point is valid, by supporting the movie I am indirectly supporting someone whose attitudes and actions in the real world are abhorent.
I just don't know. On balance I think I probably will watch the movie and enjoy it if it is any good at all. I guess that means I am separating the art from the artist to some degree.