I think that depends on the person and everyone has their own preferences, but in general I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone chooses to avoid the works of people they disagree with or people they feel are problematic then that's their own thing, but I generally don't feel that way. I don't have any love for Orson Scott Card but will always love the Ender/Shadow book series'. I also don't think people should be lambasted for appreciating the work of otherwise shitty people. I think directly supporting an artist that maybe is openly racist or something is one thing, but saying "That guy has some shitty views but in a vacuum he can really paint" is for sure a completely different thing.
I think they should be kept separate. Burying the entirety of a person's work because of political views or some other aspect is a very harsh act. It has its' place, but is very extreme and should be reserved for extreme cases. At least in public debates, because anyone is free to choose for themselves.
Depends how bad it gets. Take the modern JK Rowling issues. Mostly I think people enjoy jumping on a moral bandwagon to make themselves feel better in that instant instead of taking the time to think things through.
It’s a hard question to answer. I’m an opera singer and we fight over this all the time about Wagner and his operas as well. I’m not sure if there will ever be an answer, it will depend on the social leanings of the time...
I think they should as long as the author allows for them to be. If the author intentionally melds their opinions into the work itself so that they become an integral part of it, then no, they need to be assessed together.
Let’s just admire how in 1985 Card foresaw drone warfare, touch screen tablets, prevalence of the internet, social media, and using video games as a teaching tool.
He didn't understand drone warfare. And the movie should not have used drones. In the book, every fighter had a person in it, and this the ending with him letting them be shot even had more weight for the generals watching. It was much more horrific, and was the reason they needed children who didn't understand the value of life to do it.
@@tal_the_great "they needed children who didn't understand the value of life" You might only be referring to Bean, who was informed of the situation. You know everyone else found these simulations to be just training games. I would still like to add that even if Bean was aware of actual soldiers dying, he had a very them-or-us point of view and a concept that the soldiers wo gave their lives in battle did it for the sake of humanity... i do not think that means he didn't understand the value of life, but the value of defense and sacrifice for the human species. As of opposed to the film, buggers in the book were not waiting for humans to be willing to open to some sort dialogue before the final battle. Moreover, in the book, we are told what the buggers did in the Earth, which I found horrifying, but at the same time very much like boy-targeted comics -- it's odd, how us adults find horrifying what a child find amusing, perhaps that's because for a child it is not real at all.
@Gunnar Thurman The Speaker sequels do a good job of dealing with a lot of the issues raised by Ender's Game, sure, but Card's views on sexuality are very distressingly on full display in the Shadow saga, which was released even more recently. I reread the post-formic war arc only a month ago and it made me wince how many times the specific phrase "make babies" was used verbatim, and how forcefully the idea that having children = ultimate happiness was shoved on readers. There's even a moment which stood out as grossly offensive wherein a character who had been firmly established as asexual manages to "recover", enter into a heterosexual marriage, and father children. Then the ultimate conclusion of the story is the lead character managing to have a whopping 9 newborn babies all at once (against his will), and although it has a bitter ending, this is treated as an achievement rather than an atrocious invasion of privacy. As good as the Speaker trilogy did at patching some of the sloppy messages made by Game, it's clear that Card's own views have never really changed and never will.
I thought the whole point of the book was to reflect on the actions taken by everyone leading up to the genocide. This being made apparent when ender becomes the speaker for the dead and realizes his grave mistakes
Enders wasn't in the middle of Peter and Valentine, he was both of them, capable of vicious offense but also possessing empathy and the ability to care or love. The conflict between those two halves was what made him such a good commander and also so conflicted with himself.
Yes! A lot of the book was him battling between the two viewpoints, if I remember correctly. It destroys him when he must act like his brother, and thoughts similar to his brother's constanly pop in his mind. He kind of is in the middle, but only in the sense that he follows his brother's ideology when there is no other choice. He favors his sister and her concepts of goodness and abhors his brother's sociopathic, calculating, violent tendencies.
Ender's game and Speaker for the Dead were originally going to be one book. And in Speaker we see an extensive rebuke of the militaristic approach that is prevalent in Ender's game. And even if there was no Speaker for the Dead, in the first book there are already enough pages devoted to put into question the validity and morality of the war effort and the child abuse. The key phrase is "put into question". The answer you come up with by reading the book will reflect on you more than it does on the author. Additionally, the issue of gay marriage and homophobia doesn't come up in the book at all, except for the fact that there aren't any openly gay characters, but then again, most of the characters in the book are children. If we had to scrutinize the morality and politics of artists to judge their art, first, we would have to embark on a investigative journey before we decide to read a book or even listen to a song; and second, we would have to throw away quite a lot of masterpieces.
People constantly claim to support freedom of speech but act the opposite by constantly being butthurt. The day authors have to pander to every possible reader in existence they're gonna quit writing because all the fun would have been stripped from it. It's still military sci fi. Reading this to witch hunt for militaristic views and expecting recreational sex is besides the point in every way imaginable, especially considering it's about kids. People will write and express things you don't like. Get on with it.
I always thought the ending to Ender's Game kinda negated the apparent militaristic mindset of the book, because it seems to imply that conflict is a result of lack of communication. But then again I never read any of the sequels, so I'm not sure.
I agree. I also think it negates the militaristic mindset by showing how Ender, a soldier who in said mindset is only there to obey and not to think, defies this by showing remorse for his actions, even if he was "only following the chain of command".
Lack of understanding has driven violence by one group against another for all history. How very human to have our response to the Formics be genocide.
Contrary to what a lot of people here are saying, you absolutely don't need to have read the sequels to understand Ender's game. You are right about the core message of the book/film. Fear and a failure to communicate lead to genocide.
Exactly. The whole thing with Bonzo being smaller then Ender was laughable. Considering they are like two years apart in age. Doesn’t help that you can see Asa Butterfield holding back when pushing the other actor. It truly was a dumb casting choice.
It would have to run in Nolan-esque timeline setting and includes books about Formic Wars. In any case, just like Dune - it happens mostly in character's head.
“There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'.” ― Larry Niven
@@Rumham729 I think it's fairly obvious that a character may espouse views and opinions that differ from the authors own beliefs. If you need a more in depth explanation than that, I suggest you contact the author of the quote (Author Larry Niven) and ask him.
@@Phreddy666 I agree with what you are saying, but disagreeing wouldn't make someone an idiot. that's all I'm saying. People might have valid counterarguments for sure.
After Ender "Speaks" a death on Lusitania the Catholic Priest says, "Almost thou persuadist me to become a humanist". The religion of the Enderverse books is unquestionably Humanism. Card, conversely, is unquestionably Mormon. Sister Carlotta tells Bean that he won't have to believe in Christ in this life in order to make it to heaven. Bean tells her that she is a heretic and her views wouldn't pass muster with the Pope, "They don't even pass muster with me." replies Sister Carlotta
Ender’s reaction when he finds that the war is real is in the sequels where he atones for his part in the war by becoming a pacifist who celebrates the lives of individuals by researching and presenting their life stories after death and he helps the race he tried to eliminate when understands them.
There is no controversy with this book. Everything related to "scandal" is based purely on Card's religious beliefs. The only negative thing about Ender's Game is how terrible the movie was.
@@__-yu2mz I liked the movie to, and had never read the books. However I recently read the books, and my god they're right. The people who always say "the book was better" are legitimately correct. The book was awesome, and had a huge twist that was ignored in the movie, and makes the movies ending actually impactful.
I enjoyed the movie. I think it was cast very well. The performances are great across the board. The production design is hit and miss. The aliens look great, the humans look a little too Starship Troopers. Finally, the script and direction were kinda bland. It doesn't want to do more than adapt the book, as efficiently as possible. Paul Verhoeven should have directed it, then it probably would have been perfect.
@@__-yu2mz I personally think the book is genuinely just better. That usually is the case anyway tbh. It's pretty rare to have an adaptation turn out well like Jurassic Park or Lord of the Rings. it's just much more fleshed out. The book would be better adapted as a HBO/Netflix series, but they would probably just mess it up somehow and a lot of stuff still just wouldn't work practically and I don't see anyone having the willingness to give it the budget it would need.
I find it funny that people see things in the book that just aren’t there. For example, the news article that quoted the genocide stance… it’s missing the part before it. The part where Graff states that he doesn’t want to go to war and that he thinks the only reason we are at war with the Formics is because they can’t communicate with us, nor with them. Which means, there’s no way to negotiate with them or try to parlay peace. This information is literally one or two paragraphs ahead of the accusatory one quoted. Likewise, the book is extremely anti-war. At nearly every turn. But, It does have a lot of themes of parental neglect. Enders own parents overlook Peters behavior or just “aren’t involved enough to know it’s going on”, to the point that the only reason Peter hasn’t killed Ender is because Valentine protects him. The School is the same. Lots of child neglect there, too. Then, we get to the Battle School and there are only two adults there that don’t engage in Child Neglect. Graff is hurting Ender on purpose, for a purpose. But, he basically watches over him constantly and tries to ensure his safety and well-being at every opportunity. Then, Graffs second in command literally tries to get Graff removed from the school entirely after what happens with the fight and death. Heck, even after they win the war, the adults basically try to paint Ender as the monster for killing two other children, rather than any of the adults involved in his life, or the circumstances that lead to any of it. Graff evenpoints out that the only reason they got away with what they did to the kids is because the prosecution would have had to prove that Ender could still do what he did,if they hadn’t done what they did to him. This is not something Graff is even pleased about. Most of the themes of the book are that parents don’t pay enough attention to children and what they say or do. Not just parents, but adults in general. That kids only matter to adults when they can use them for something. Adults make no move to understand kids. This is mirrored with The Formics. Communication is not tried at all with the Formics when the fleets arrive. And, the Formics can only plead their case to a mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted child who can’t even tell if he’s awake half the time. It’s always amusing to me when people get something out of a medium or a work that was never there. That says a lot about you, rather than the work, if that is what you are getting out of it. A book about child neglect and how society exploits or beats down the gifted and extraordinary children is a “pro war” book? It’s “anti-gay”? It’s pro-genocide? It’s political? The things the guilty conscience brings to the table when confronted with reality. I bet these are the same morons who think Starship Troopers is fascist propaganda.
Hollywood won’t allow kids flying on wires, but the book has them committing genocide on an entire species…. Yeah because the book is words on a page and Hollywood is using real people… I think we can give them a pass on that one
Politically opinions are prevalent in many different literary genres. It seems, more importantly, are they popular with the trends at that time and with those elites who decide what we can say or think.
I think people who believe it's "pro war" or "pro genocide" didn't read it, or its sequels, which the novel version of the story was written to support the sequels
"when one is confronted with violence they must respond with violence" - whoever thinks this is the purpose of the book simply hasn't continued reading the rest of the books in the series. Also, I'm gay, married, gender nonconforming, jewish, far left, and I know I don't speak for the universe of other people who share one or more of these qualities with me when I say this, but I still want to put it here in writing that I not only adore these books deeply, but they also are books that left me changed after I read them, in some subtle but core aspects of myself. I am sure that if me and Orson Scott Card ever found ourselves stuck together in an elevator or something and we started talking about how we think things should be in the country and what we dislike most, we would probably not get along - which is generally the case these days at a time when we over-identify with our politics and politics-lite and enjoy seething at each other. But who he is, the man who weaved together this universe and breathed life into it with such gentleness and brilliance - my impression of him in the elevator would be dead-wrong. Its not his job to see the beauty in me, but its my job to see the beauty in him, and I do.
OK, first let's start with the reason for wiping the bugs out. They REFUSED all attempts at diplomacy, because they had no concept of it until the end when there was just one queen left. There was, literally, no other choice. Second: In the book, Ender was led to believe that he was always in a mere simulation because they didn't want to take the chance that he would realize 1) he was ending an entire species, but also 2) that his "winning" order required the absolute sacrifice of almost every HUMAN on the ships...because those were MANNED ships, not drones (in the book, the movie messed that up). Had he not made the sacrificial strategy, there was no way humanity would have won and the aliens would have come back and committed genocide on humanity. To the bugs, genocide was just the way things were done. They didn't worry about wiping out species. It's like asking if marching army ants in the jungle here on Earth are worried about wiping out species in their way. When Ender realizes how he was used, he then goes on to try and make amends (in the following books). When you're fighting an enemy that either CAN''T or (worse) WON'T consider genocide an evil...then you will often be required to use whatever level of force necessary to secure the safety of your own people. Thinking beings SHOULD always leave a door to diplomacy open, because if the enemy are also thinking, they may be persuaded to accept a diplomatic resolution. But if they're not, then the defenders may be forced to take ultimate action. Their species may be stained for the future, but at least they'll HAVE a future in which to do their best to make amends.
I have loved Cards work since the 80s starting with the Ender series and while I do not agree with a lot of his politics what has amazed me about his books is that in much of them they talk of tolerance of the other. Most of the time the protagonist is an outsider themselves. The Ender books including Shadow are not pro military, they are the exact opposite. Seventh Son, Treason, Wyrms, Songmaster and many others all deal with main characters who are different and suffer abuse for being so. I cannot explain how an author can write works steeped in tolerance of those who are different while seemingly hold personal contrary views. I will continue to love these books.
I’m super surprised by this controversy since it was the core conflict of the book. I can only guess that those who criticize it are not intelligent enough to read the multiple perspectives presented in the book. It was the dehumanizing of the most human type “concept” a child. This child has to go through a brutal militaristic training because the entire human race is threatened with extinction from an alien race. However it goes deeper, that the aliens actually didn’t understand the individual nature of humans, that their society sees individuals as finger nails and queens as individuals and by the time they understand it, it was too late, they were locked in the war with humanity and they knew there would be no forgiveness, but it’s why they held back their fleet at the final conflict, in hopes that some hope of communication could occur. Ender meanwhile was getting subliminal attempts of communication. When ender commits genocide it destroys him, he sees himself as a villain, the military sees him as a hero, it’s very much like Oppenheimers feelings regarding the nuclear bomb.
It's quite sad that soldiers are mandated to read ender's game, but not the sequel that where ender pretty much commits a form of suicide as a consequence of him dealing with his guilt. Guilt that was the driving force of his life for every day after the genocide.
I think they're smart enough to deal with the emotions of being through combat by themselves without needing a book to teach them about emotional pain. Seriously what kind of world do you live in ? They read Ender's Game because it speaks about strategic thinking, that's all.
I remember reading this book several times growing up, both while being intensely bullied and afterwards. I found the comments that the children threw around between each other to be fairly accurate. The main exception being Bonzo who was written as very extreme on purpose. Even Rose the Nose playing into his stereotype is something i saw real kids doing this to cut off jokes before they happen.
I was a gifted kid and read 'Ender's Game' when I was around 11 or 12 and absolutely loved it. It's a story that I can imagine we would devise in play within my circle of gifted friends. It appears that those critiquing this novel are at times reaching so as to appear hurt or harmed. It's a fair and fun novel depicting gifted kids just being kids outside of the 'game'. Enders Game is neither pro or anti gay or lgbt, nor is it promoting child abuse. People need to stop reading into the book looking for faults and just enjoy reading it. Wonderful novel...totally recommend.
@@Yeshua_is-Cool All good books but wait till you get into Ender's Shadow. That SHIT movie, Bean was some kid who looked like a catalogue model or something, and he's only in it for a second, whereas he's basically one of the main players---THE main player, imo, but that's just favouritism
THANK YOU; I'm sick of lame cinema-goers who'll watch any old shit and say it's good. I HATED the movie adaption, every part of it, and giving the fucking Ansible away in the first scene---talentless twats.
Nah, he isn't. Like Herbert he has great ideas and worldbuilding, but sucks as writer, writing one dimensional Mary Sue's and Gary Stews and thoroughly s....ks at pacing.
@@piotrd.4850 Don't really care about characters in sci-fi; in fact, keep that shit away---last thing I wanna read is some twat wittering on about the flaws of a character, the pros and tribulations...go read Dickens. Not you, I'm addressing authors who neglect actual concept and narrative to "explore character"; that shit is for drama alone, sure you can have both, but the fact that O.S.C. and J.G.Ballard never bothered meant nothing in the long run; the CONCEPT is why I read sci-fi, if I want character, I'll read general fiction. Hope you don't think I'm having a go, just telling you how I think
"When Ender is confronted with violence he responds with deadly force." Anyone who criticizes this aspect in Ender's Game is speaking from pure ignorance. Ender spends the rest of his life doing penance. In "Ender in Exile" he provokes Bean's son to beat him to death and almost succeeds. Ender tells the boy beating him that he deserves it and asks to be killed. Ender writes a book "Speaker for the Dead" anonymously that condemns himself and turns his own name into a curse. The entirety of the sequels to Ender's Game is about his guilt.
Wow I didn't know any of this when I read the book. I never got any of what was stated in this review from reading it. I read the book and enjoyed it and don't care about the authors politics. It is a good read and that is what I care about. Same thing with the book Starship Troopers
"Question for everyone: should the political opinions of an author be kept separate from their work?" It all depends on whether she pushes them on her work. All I can say is that I rarely so much "humanism", especially in "Xenocide", in any other SF book... and I have more than 1'000 under the belt.
I haven’t read Xenocide yet, I’m reading ender in exile right now but so far reading these books I think politics should be detached from books because seeing/reading a different view on just life itself like through Enders eyes makes it so good
I was raised Mormon in the US, I had no idea that "bugger" was a British derogatory word for a gay person, I doubt Card did either. That seems like quite a stretch haha. I'm not Mormon, but there are lots of people who have written great books that have wacky religious beliefs. He definitely isn't the first haha. Interesting video! I always find it interesting how a writer's beliefs, culture, upbringing, and family structures have to do with their writing, especially thematically
I am reminded of another author who was a powerful political leader, was actually genocidal, and was homophobic (despite the fact that at least one of his top generals was gay). He believed in gun control (i.e. that ordinary civilian citizens should not be allowed to possess guns), was a vegetarian, and claimed to be a faithful Christian (of the Roman Catholic faith). Should people be lambasted for reading Mein Kampf? Of course not. Do people who read Mein Kampf agree with the author's political and personal opinions? Given the number of people who have read it, I certainly hope that not all of his readers do (although, sadly, there are are far too many neo-Nazis and white supremacists who agree with the author's views - and only one of them would be "far too many"). Is Mein Kampf a "good" piece of art to read? I have no idea, since I have never read it (and do not plan to do so). Concerning O.S.C., I certainly do not agree with his ultra-right-wing political views, nor his views on gay-marriage. But the Ender and Shadow series of books were damned good reads, and I make no apology for saying so; I really do appreciate his art. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Ender and Shadow series were the best SF series of books that I have ever read. I did find the movie a bit disappointing, though. (But then, again, I often do find movies based on novels disappointing; for example, I think the 1984 release of Dune was the absolute worst novel-based SF movie ever made. If there is a novel that I want to read and I know that there is a soon-to-be-released movie about it, I will often wait to watch the movie first, then read the novel. It is much less disappointing, that way. ;-) And by the way, those who think that Ender's Game unconditionally supports war and genocide (or xenocide) in a positive light, obviously did not read the same book that I did, nor Card's subsequent novels taking place in that universe. After Ender was made to realise what he had done (i.e. that it was real war and not just simulated battles, and that he wiped out a whole sentient species), his absolute remorse was much deeper in the novel, than was depicted in the movie, and he did everything he could to make amends, and restore the Formics. Like in the movie, the original book ends with the beginning of his quest to find a nurturing world on which he could "plant" the Formic queen's egg. Even the leaders of the Battle School (like Graff, Anderson and Dap - the Dap-in-the-novel had a much more senior role than the Dap-in-the-movie) regretted what they did to the children under their care, but felt their actions were necessary for the preservation of the Human Race.
The irony I find with the controversies is that the book very much taught me about perspective and understanding other people. His views are his own. That does not mean one can't learn from this book. I've read it several times and always seem to come back to it at least once a year. The story grows with you and as you mature as a person, the more you learn from it. I haven't gotten past Speaker yet. Hopefully I'll do so this time!
All the critiques of Ender's Game presented in the video stem from a fundamental failure to understand the work. Nowhere in the novel are the criticized actions condoned. Far from it - Ender's harming of bullies is explicitly presented as having been intentionally allowed to happen (even set up) by military leaders as part of evaluation and training, with the controversy behind that even being present in the world of the book itself. Ender is only "forced" to violence because he was literally given no suitable alternative. The notion of violence being necessary for survival is obviously put to question both hypothetically by Ender and others ahead of time and then proven wrong after the fact when he learns the intent of the aliens. The "good" of the outlawing of religion is consistently undermined, and the restriction on the number of children is presented as unpopular. Even the military "trainers" are aware of what is morally problematic about their actions and at times even self loathing, hardly thinking that serves to apologize or condone. The entire point of moral dilemmas is to reflect that moral right and wrong isn't always easy or obvious. Likewise, many of our best worlds of fiction are messy or contain aspects we don't morally approve if, precisely because that is how life and actual society operates. The book is outwardly clinical in its presentation of these actions and concepts, and implicitly it bemoans some and goes as far as to condem others. Appropriately enough, people who whiff on all this exhibit the sort of shallow and easily mislead thinking that the book explores with the Locke and Demothenes personal. That's just another unfortunate reality of the real world that Card was not afraid to accurately represent, without condemnation, in his work.
As for my understanding of the term "militarism" is the dominance of military-centered political thinking and not the believe, that a country should maintain a strong fighting force to defend its national interests. What militarism in all its consequence actually means is, that the civil institutions of a country are mostly if not completely subordinated to the military and its goals. In other words one could say, that a regular democratic society, is usually a society and a country posessing an army, while a militaristic society is rather an army posessing a state. YOUR definition of "militarism" would mean, that most countrys of the world including most western democracys would qualify as "militaristic" societys. Most western countrys usually prefer deplomacy and trade over military conflict if possible but maintain large and verry capable fighting forces. By the definition i know they would not qualify as militaristic.
I have reread the book several times over the decades and it never occurred to me that “bugger-lover” or even the butt-watching joke had anything to do with male homosexuality. Ender’s Game is one of my favorite novels (the movie was so-so) and all these pseudo-controversies won’t change that. The Ender series and the Ender’s Shadow series are all good, except Children of the Mind didn’t ring my bell. I’m rereading them again.
I found this video interesting as I was not aware of Orson Scott Cards personnel views when I both read the book and watched the film. In my mind this answers the question put forth in this video as if you remain ignorant of the values of the author then you can judge the work independent of this bias. However, if you are aware of the authors views, reasons, etc behind the work it influences your view of it.
I love Ender's Game. Easily one of my favorite sci-fi books. But it is hard to knowingly spend my money on someone that thinks I am inferior to them and undeserving of a family. It is more than a simple difference in politics. That being said, I do not think Card's controversial ideologies show up in any of his Ender series.
I feel the same way. His politics go against mine, but I still buy his Ender books. The way I look at it is that he is getting paid in advance for these books. Whether I buy the book or not won't effect him or the publisher in any way. If he was a new writer or it was a small publisher not buying the books would make a difference but since he's so established not buying his books would only cause him to retire early and his books would still be republished and he would still get royalties from them.
Bean, the Atheist, says in "Ender's Shadow, "If God is in charge then he ought to be fair, and if he isn't fair, then why was SIster Carlotta so happy he was in charge." If you can't recognize that Card is being fair to all points of view when reading this, then you aren't being fair to Card.
Did we read the same book? Ender did not immediately jump to violence, he always tried the diplomatic solution first but Ender was also a realist so he would hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The book also makes it clear the buggers first invasion was a mistake, that they did not recognize us as being a sentient lifeform, they were saddened by the destruction they brought on humanity, had no intentions of returning for another invasion attempt, and understood that as a species we would not forgive the transgression. All of the battles in the end were around the buggers homeworld in anticipation of our arrival, and wholly defensive. What this sets up is a sympathetic villain, that we are intended to feel ashamed for destroying so my impression of Enders Game is that it is Anti Violence, Anti War, Anti Genocide.
Nudity has nothing to do with being sexual and the characters being nude together doesn't mean that they were ok with homosexuality or the author was ok with it.
Ok here is the problem w/the movie. The movie is amazing. Its just...not Ender's Game. Its not the story, its not the characters, its not the world of Ender's Game. Its just a good sci-fi movie that is rather generic.
It was the PG-13 that messed the movie up. A darker, violent, & gritty series would have done it justice. Like Ender killing 2 other kids in a bloody manner. And we all know Bonzo deserved it. Also the menace that was Peter. Which made Valentine that much more of a source of goodness in a cruel world.
Enders Game both the novel and film in my opinion are garbage. And yes I’ve actually read the book first then saw the film, because it was part of my English 2 class. And recently I’ve tried reading Ender Exile but after 23 pages in I was already bored and neither invested or interested, it’s awful. I’d rather read a Micheal Crichton Sci-fi book because he actually can write better books, well he use too until he passed away sadly. I’d also rather watch something like Prometheus than the Enders Game film, it’s that bad in my opinion, Prometheus however is actually way better.
The film is definitely bad. Cringe-worthy, actually. But don't be so hard on the book. It's good. It's celebrated for a reason. It obviously didn't capture you, and that's okay. Try giving it another read at some point?
I like the whole series. The themes are explored well and conclusions are well written. I find that there are paralelles with other works too. The mockingjay series where catnis shoots grey when she realises return to a hunger games. Oldmans war has the same themes be it on the ironic side where its not kids but old men becoming soldiers. Then there is the parafaith war also exploring a god like character. Even in the dune saga there is the theme of a "saviour" that has exceeded his bounds and turned utopia into distopia. Battlefield Earth paralleles the destruction of species, first humans barely surviving but also learning from an extinct species relics the tlaxu made extinct by taryl and his Psychlos.
To say Ender responded to violence with deadly force implies Ender predetermined to kill the boy who attacked him! I reject this supposition entirely! The boy who attacked Ender was bigger stronger and a bully Ender responded the only way he could to survive and the towel hook penetrating the other boys skull was an accident and not something that Ender even foresaw much less planned. His response however was precisely what is required when attacked by a bully, you have to make certain that they feel sufficient pain from their attempt to subdue you with fear that they will never do it again. Even if the bully wins the fight they will think twice about attacking you a second time. The reason this is especially applicable in warfare is that the doctrine of restrained engagement fails to win and merely prolongs war which means many more people will die in the conflict than need to! Therefore the most caring and human way to conduct warfare when you are forced by an aggressor to defend yourself is to use maximum force with as much violence as possible to emphasize that you are fighting for survival and will expend every resource to defeat them as quickly as possible. This approach of maximum force when defending yourself always causes the aggressor to think that maybe they bit off more than they can chew and while they are having that thought you launch another vicious attack with all the strength that you can muster. By taking this approach you will likely cause the attacker to flee because they were not prepared for such a response when they obviously thought you were easy prey prior to them attacking you. If you show any restraint to a bully they will always interpret that as weakness and it will only encourage them to continue their aggressive behavior. I speak from personal experience of multiple incidents with gangs and or individual bully's growing up. My first encounter with a bully I chose to run away rather than fight. This embolden them to attempt to bully me into allowing them onto a carnival ride for free about a month later. On the second occasion I looked directly into his eyes and let him know in clear language that I took his threat as a threat to my life and told him my focus would be entirely on ending him before his friends could pry me off of him should he choose to attack me and He backed down and walked away. I never had another problem with that bully or his followers after that.
If sci-fi fans can accept that Heinlein, a quasi-fascist pervert, and Isaac Asimov, a groper, then Card should be accepted too. Warts and all. No more idiotic attempts to excise him and his importance from the genre.
That's... not at all what's been happening. Sci fans had appreciated both those authors works, *and* have also been criticizing them. For both their personal opinions, and the issues in their books. Sci fi fans aren't some monolithic hivemind who think in one way only. People recognize that Ender's Game is a cool book and important to the genre. Doesn't mean they have to like or appreciate Card though. He can get fucked.
I've read this book (original, non-updated 1991 version) for the first time a few years ago, and I really cringed at some of the language used, but I had to remember that this was what we'd say is "a product of its time." The parts of the book that sort of bothered me were the constant references to nudity among the boys - sleeping with nothing on, and especially the infamous shower scene - we all know how the mind's eye works when reading, and it felt awkward having images like that in my head, however briefly. All in all, I did enjoy the book as well as the other books in the series. I hadn't even heard about Card's anti-gay views until much later, but I always try and not let an author's views affect my enjoyment of their work... Lovecraft and Rowling included.
If youre super based, you could think of the formic (aka bugger) invasion as a metaphor for the non-white invasion of the west, then you'll really enjoy the book. jk don't do dat, das racis
well the fact that people are trying to cancel him for his religious views seems to be pretty good evidence of the fact that we live in a religiously intolerant society so i don't know why people would find that aspect of the book controversial. it's like he's almost predicting the plight he was going to end up in. and he is right that (in)tolerance goes both ways. you have ideologies that are mutually exclusive and abhorrent to each other. and in that case, it seems like the intolerance is exactly the same. it does not allow for a difference of opinion and it is hegemonic, prescriptive, coercive and dictatorial. you are not allowed to not think like us. that's where the progressive side has gone off the rails. it's become as bad as the religious right. it used to be true liberals embraced "live and let live". but now that they have cultural power, they dictate the terms of our actions, our words, our thoughts and our beliefs. fall in line... or else. a secular religion with DOGMAS and HERESIES and CARDINAL SINS... even EXCOMMUNICATION. delightful. at least when it comes to ideologies, card and colonel graff prove themselves right again. the aim, apparently, is to eradicate the other... completely.
Card probably got paid a flat price when he sold the rights. So how well The movie(s) do, Card will get paid the same. Which is nothing. Also, since these students are main characters, and are supposed to be (in the books) 6yrs old, the lack of a romantic subplot is an blessing,
8:07 "Validates the concept that confronted with violence, you must respond with violence." There is no other response. I think the problem comes that people have tried to redefine "violence" in contemporary times. But true violence can only ever be stopped through greater violence. If a person, entity, organization, etc; is committing violence, the only **reasonable** response is greater violence. Imagine a world where the response to Germany's violence in 1939 had been met with only dialogue? That logic is flawed. If someone, something, or some group of people means to do true violence, the ONLY response is to end the existence of those doing violence.
I don't think it validates the concept, it just state that violence against violence does work and might be necessary, at least in self-defense. Let's just point out that Ender was very resourceful beyond violence, as he was very little and insanely clever.
@@okutaviof self-defense is a very small use case for when violence is needed. All violence must be met with greater violence. The fastest path to peace is war.
Most of these criticisms are failure of reading comprehension on the part of the critics, mostly because they don't care what the book actually says, but want to grandstand their own opinions.
8:25 I really hated the movie's casting of Bonzo, in the book Bonzo was a bully a full head larger than Ender, not a loud mouth a head shorter. Ender was supposed to be (apparently) out classed by size and weight when confronted by Bonzo in the shower. The actor was fine, he did a good job with what he had, but he didn't come across as threatening, other than as a egotist ass.
I think "bugger" was inspired by a certain racial pejorative that was popularized in the United States. The phrase "bugger-lover" and the very basic structure of the word bugger leads me to believe this as well as the American perspective that Card would have been writing from, having grown up in the US during the Civil Rights movement and amid racial tension.
Card's opinions are often accused of permeating through his story? How is that a criticism? How would it be possible for an author to write something completely devoid to what they believe in or what they think about? What utter nonsense. I don't know how anyone could say anything more valueless.
@@legogenius1667 "all living being, regardless of there humanity deserve your moral cosideration; for they, as you were begotten by this universe and are as such your brothers exept the gays, miss me with that shit" -Orson Scott Card presumably
@@JCdental I'm a member of the same church and I'm well aware of the associated views on gay marriage. The things that are being said here about him are inaccurate.
@@JCdental We don't see gay people as bad people or anything, and they're welcome in our church meetings and activities. We believe that marriage was meant to be between man and woman only, but that doesn't mean we won't treat gays as real people with value like anyone else. We simply follow the teachings of Christ on the matter. He taught against the sin, but still loved and respected the sinner.
I mean, ngl, I personally think that if someone reads Ender's Game and thinks that its somehow jingoistic, they either didn't finish the book, they're illiterate, or they're jingoistic themselves and use the book as a scapegoat for "making them think problematic things". Also, as someone with some very fundamental differences in belief from Card, I really didn't see any Mormon propaganda in the books. I think the books are instead a critique of the philosophy that "the ends justify the means" and very clearly asserts that no, the means really do matter. It's a call to being culturally open, to not seeing ones own culture as superior, even if it is entirely alien to your own. And also the books seem to try to fight against the trope in fiction that "intelligence is evil". Sure, Card himself might also believe some problematic things, but to then shut your eyes and pretend that Ender's Game and its 3 sequels are also guilty of the same issues is horribly horribly unethical and illiberal.
In my personality opinion The Three Body Problem has way more issues than Ender's Game and that recently won the Hugo Award and might be getting a Netflix adaptation.
Orson Scott Card's controversial statements aren't NEARLY the worst thing I've heard. If you read his essay "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" you will see that his views, while unpopular and debatable, do not come from a place of hatred.
No, it comes from a place of love -- specifically his loving to send gay men to prison for the rest of their lives just for being gay - a position for which he argues explicitly.
Thanks for talking about homophobia! Yes, we can obviously seperate an author from their work. A book stands on its own, whoever its writer was. But it's also important not to simply disregard an author's horrible opinions - like homophobia - because we like their book. Talent and success is never an excuse for being an asshole loll. Keeping silent about homophobia while openly supporting a homophobic author can easily be viewed as being complicit, and for good reasons. I guess when it happens, we just need to talk about it a bit.
People who fail at reading comprehension, should at least understand that DESCRIBING something does not equate to condemning or supporting something. Ender's Game is one of few books, which to extent which it is possible, meeting of TRULY ALIEN mindsets, mismatch of basic comprehension of and outlook on the universe. Whole point of the book - the other , in different setting, was Red Storm Rising - was that none of the participants not only don't have complete picture, but even lack tools to understand context of unfolding events. But again - people who accuse Ender's Game of 'promoting militarism', probably think that both movie and book Starship Troopers promoted 'fascism'. PS: that was not genocide, but xenocide and whole thing is idea that two very ALIEN cultures had different concepts of sapience, sentience, ethics and war and life itself. PS: I'm waiting for these people to discover Warhammer 40k, where Ender's Game is just another day in the office :P
I am a very happily married gay man who loves sci-fi in all its manifestations and thematic possibilities. While it seems very distasteful to me that Card is so hell-bent on trying to stop gay marriage, I do not allow his views to dictate what I read. If the novel were all about the evils of gay people and a manifesto of anti-gay rhetoric, then the answer is straightforward, I simply would not read the book. But as the author himself has stated, the book is not about gay marriage or gay anything; it’s a novel about the future, about family, and responsibility. And if I don’t read this book out of anger at the author’s political stances (that are not reflected in the book!), the only one to suffer here is me. And yes, I still listen to Michael Jackson’s music even though I abhor what he did. I have no problem separating the talent from the figure of the artist.
Actually it was never proven that Michael Jackson had sex with children. It was a trick question: did he SLEEP with them. It was a sleep over, so literally he was sleeping in the same room they were sleeping in.
Just finished the book for the first time, and I’m struggling to see how this book was in anyway pro-war or militaristic. To me it was pretty clear from the beginning that creating child soldiers and training them to commit genocide was ethically wrong. That being said, I felt that Card did a great job with illustrating the genocide’s inevitability through his discussions of space travel and time; was there time for understanding on either side, human or Formic? It’s difficult to say. Nevertheless, he follows up these discussions by talking about the understanding from the Bugger Queen, when she realized that “the humans hadn’t forgiven us.” I absolutely just love the last line in the book, which for me is both hopeless and yet somehow hopeful: “He looked a long time.”
The problem I see with the movie is that Ender does not feel remorse because of the loss of the entire human fleet, but because of wiping out the bug race. This is the biggest flaw, and the scriptwriters are being sanctimonious. The bugs attacked Earth first, and they are bugs for what they are. Ender then even tried to resuscitate them by looking for a new planet for them? He seems to forget that the bugs tried to wipe out the entire human race. You defeated them and that is it. This just does not seem right to any person with common sense.
There is a difference between Genocide and Xenocide. Genocide is against your own species and Xenocide is against an alien species. Both of which are horrible, one of them however, is a part of our survival instinct. Look I hope the universe is like Star Trek and Star Wars but I don't assume that all life is the same and shares our morals and principles. In my opinion I think this is incredibly arrogant and harmful to our survival as species. I hope I'm wrong, I do. But I'll maintain my skepticism of alien life until they prove to us and we prove to them that even alien species can find common ground. Until then, I'll assume all aliens care only for their own species and we should expect hostilities between us.
As is often the case, I find the original novelette preferable to the novel. The novelette does not deal with the background of the conflict, the society, authoritarian state (although glimpses of it can be spotted), Enders family.... It is about the use of children, manipulating them to do the unthinkable - commit "xenocide" (as it will be called later). Grown ups knew that attacking the enemy homeworld is the way to win the war, but cannot bring themselves to do it; they rather manipulate children into the act. Those who would ban this book should be reminded that children are used as soldiers, and manipulated into ruthlessness, here and now. I do advocate judging literary works on their own merit, nor letting what we know about the author color our impressions, but now I am not so sure I read the novelette the way Card intended. Perhaps he was too subtle to penetrate my own worldview, so different from his. To me, the focus was not the war, but ruined childhood.
You are not wrong per say on the ruined childhood. You are wrong however on the belief that they manipulated children into doing their dirty work. I don’t know why, but a lot of people have this belief as well. They missed the part where the children were the next Alexander, or Napoleon. Each one of them was already on equal terms of aptitude as all of the adults. Except they were also being taught at a young age all of the things they needed to be greater then the adults. The point is they needed someone better then them. So in the books the government actually was pushing some people to have kids together. They were trying to produce as many Alexander’s as possible. Just to make their chances of getting the one necessary to win the war. They needed a fleet commander that could pull off things they couldn’t dream of. It was two parts really. Part one being that they were smarter in their tactics then the adults would be, against such an overwhelming force. Which would be achieved by training them in a newer manner then the way they were taught. They would be more adaptable then them. The second was that they needed to be fierce in their attack, and cunning. Since every adult already knew the fleet was there, and that this was no simulation. They would hesitate where no hesitation could be had. Again if you remember that the beginning battles were easy at first, but gradually became more lopsided against them. The reality was they had no quarter, no place to run and hide for a breather. They even lost people because of some of the mistakes made by the kids. They had to use the dr. earlier in the battles, or they would never even make it close to the Formics planet. The whole thing was an uphill battle from the beginning. Hence why Graff purposely put Ender in such a position from the beginning. He needed to be prepared for the fact he would not be given an easy fight ever. It would always be him against unfavorable odds. This is why Bonzo was allowed to go into the showers. They knew, but Graff let it happen. He needed Ender to realize wether in a game, or in real life. He needed to be able to think ahead at any given moment and formulate a plan that could win. Bonzo was set on killing him too, but Ender was always more or less naturally prepared for these kinds of situations. It was more of him coming to grips with it after was where he faltered. He wasn’t perfect. Every step was him having to overcome what was basically impossible odds. He was built up to be better prepared then any adult. The book succinctly shows the damage done to his psyche, and holds no punches back at showing how hard the world was for Ender with such a terrible weight. It even goes into this further with bean thinking about that weight in Enders shadow. Long story short is that the reality of the situation was the adults would be lacking far to greatly to win the war. So creating a scenario where they would have a better chance of winning was how the battle school program came about. Not because of evil means, or anything negative, beyond what couldn’t be controlled.
@@onepoundswallowtwopoundcoc3115 Sorry for a nitpick, but "per se", not "per say" - that's Latin. Ans, _please,_ do use paragraph breaks. Anyway, you do make some valid points. I neglected that (supposedly reliably and early identified) "natural talents" were intensely trained while their psyche was still very plastic, leading to much faster results. I don't believe that the original novella features "directed reproduction" program - Card needed it for the novel series to produce Ender's siblings, including Peter the Hegemon. (BTW, I think that the whole arc of conflict on Earth was utterly unnecessary. If the series consisted only of the original novella (not novel) and _Speaker for the Dead,_ it would have been perfect.) You are also right in pointing out that kids who believed they were playing in a simulation would have had much lover inhibition threshold against doing the unthinkable - xenocide. However, their childhood was still ruined, and grown ups were well aware that attaching the Formics' home planet is the only way to win, but wanted somebody else to do it.
@@bazoo513 Not a nit pick at all. It is the correct way of saying. I hate that people feel like they have to call it a nit-pick, even though they are just correcting the use of language. I’m also on a phone, and haven’t seen a way to break it apart into paragraphs properly. So that’s why it is in blocks. As to the end, I agree with you. That was where I was referring to you being correct. They absolutely would never regain their childhood.
@@onepoundswallowtwopoundcoc3115 Thank you - I was afraid right after posting that I crossed the line. So, it seems we more or less agree, but emphasize different aspects of the work. That speaks highly of the work itself. Cheers!
I have read a lot of OSCs work. And over time, I noticed something. He will do scenes with a guy checking out a girl. Describing how he views her. And scenes with a girl checking out a guy. Same thing. And there is zero wrong with that. Any fiction author needs to be able to do both. But what I have noticed is, when it's a girl checking out a guy, OSC seems to go into a *lot* more detail. Describing that rugged jawline. Those rough hands. The way his shirt accentuates his muscular shoulders.
No, "bugger" is not a British derogatory slang term for gay men. No-one ever calls a gay man a "bugger", however it is slang and is often directed at children. It would be perfectly normal to call someone a "cheeky bugger", in UK if they did something a bit sly and playful, but not malicious. A good example would be someone who plays a surprising move in a friendly chess game, might get a joking "clever bugger aren't you", or someone walking into a group of kids playing football and being narrowly missed by the ball might be referred to as a "lucky bugger". In short. Don't claim stuff is a slur when its not, especially when fact-checking this shit would take a few seconds. Its irresponsible and devalues your point. Source - I'm British. This is common knowledge. This makes your whole video look like stupid propaganda to ANY half-awake Brit watching who'll instinctively think... "wait, no its not".
@@Sci-FiOdyssey I don't care. They're wrong. Incidentally. How fucking arrogant do you have to be, to tell someone what their own slang and their own culture is. Are you seriously going to try to correct me (incorrectly) on my own fucking slang. REALLY!
Both right! Mark's reasoning could be far-fetched, but it is sound though based in generalities. TC's personal linguistic reality cannot be denied or debunked because in Linguistics, Usage trumps Rules ! Languages can be broken into varying dialects or even IDIOLECTS (think idiosyncrasy) spoken by sometimes very small groups. TC knows this instinctively: his linguistic reality cannot be denied. But might not be as widespread as he thinks. You're both right, and no I'm not British. I've read an enormous amount of book including many sea novels where a bunghole is not necessarily found on a cask.. Cheers!
Ender's game is a distopic book: is not supposed to describe an ideal society. All these criticism is nonsene if you look at the book with that perspective.
Very interesting vid.....I saw the film years ago & totally missed the controversy.......But that thing of removing an artist from the work...Wagner's music I find really moving but it has a long "political" shadow cast over it that has like an acid burned so deep into it evoking visions in the mind that can't be un done...
It’s completely fair and right for you to express your opinions of Card and his work, just as it’s fair and right for Card to exercise the exact same freedoms that you exercise. And I disagree with your conclusions. For example, I believe that Card was demonstrating how awful war is and how awful such extreme measures are to win a war, yet demonstrates how miscommunications and lack of communication can lead to escalations of conflicts. But I do agree with the concept that if it’s us or them (meaning our survival is completely dependent upon destroying the enemy, such as the NAZIs and the imperial Japanese during World War II) that we not only have the right, but rather we have the obligation to do whatever it takes to win the war. Furthermore, when it comes to war, there are always problems, mistakes, failures and regrets in the end. War is such a disaster and destruction of so much that is important in life.
Honestly reading this book without knowing any background on the author, you would have no idea he held bigoted beliefs. His story here is a much more nuanced take on war and violence than many other books in the genre. Starship troopers is much more pro military and heinlein is praised endlessly.
A lot of the criticism leveled at enders game is very confusing because the book does literally the same thing. The beginning of the chapters centers on the adults of battle and command school debating on the merits of what they are doing. Its literally a central theme of the book of it being a brutal and terrible thing. The end of the book and doesnt revel in the "victory" ender is isolated from it there is a clear detactment that denies the reader feeling all is well. I dont agree with a lot of Cards personal beliefs but anyone who claims the book glorifies the military literally didnt read or understand the book, Graff is literally the antagonist. The idea that the adults of battle school are the heroes is laughable. The idea that the book condones what happened with the children is asinine.
Ender's Game removed because it's pornographic but many want to have actual pornographic material under the banner of "inclusion and acceptance" is ok. If people think that this was pro Militarism then they probably haven't ever 1. read the book or looked at the concept of difficult decision.
Ender in the end was wrong he simply committed true war and it doesn't matter how ender won just that he won you should always be ready to commit genocide when ever you go to war and that is why true war should always be avoided but if it can't be the only thing that matters is who in the end wins.
American's views about what is adequate or inadequate for children is laughingstock worldwide. Also, it seems every criticism coming from American parents/teachers is tone blind, they can't discern depiction from support/apology.
Question for everyone: should the political opinions of an author be kept separate from their work?
I think that depends on the person and everyone has their own preferences, but in general I don't see anything wrong with it. If someone chooses to avoid the works of people they disagree with or people they feel are problematic then that's their own thing, but I generally don't feel that way. I don't have any love for Orson Scott Card but will always love the Ender/Shadow book series'.
I also don't think people should be lambasted for appreciating the work of otherwise shitty people. I think directly supporting an artist that maybe is openly racist or something is one thing, but saying "That guy has some shitty views but in a vacuum he can really paint" is for sure a completely different thing.
I think they should be kept separate. Burying the entirety of a person's work because of political views or some other aspect is a very harsh act. It has its' place, but is very extreme and should be reserved for extreme cases. At least in public debates, because anyone is free to choose for themselves.
Depends how bad it gets. Take the modern JK Rowling issues.
Mostly I think people enjoy jumping on a moral bandwagon to make themselves feel better in that instant instead of taking the time to think things through.
It’s a hard question to answer. I’m an opera singer and we fight over this all the time about Wagner and his operas as well. I’m not sure if there will ever be an answer, it will depend on the social leanings of the time...
I think they should as long as the author allows for them to be. If the author intentionally melds their opinions into the work itself so that they become an integral part of it, then no, they need to be assessed together.
Let’s just admire how in 1985 Card foresaw drone warfare, touch screen tablets, prevalence of the internet, social media, and using video games as a teaching tool.
He has a great interview with Ben Shapiro. I'm not a big Shapiro guy, though I am conservative, but it was interesting none the less imo.
He didn't understand drone warfare. And the movie should not have used drones.
In the book, every fighter had a person in it, and this the ending with him letting them be shot even had more weight for the generals watching.
It was much more horrific, and was the reason they needed children who didn't understand the value of life to do it.
All of that was in Star Wars, 1977.
Tom Cruise and his video game skillset reminded us of Star Wars in a movie about pool.
The Color of Money
@@tal_the_great "they needed children who didn't understand the value of life" You might only be referring to Bean, who was informed of the situation. You know everyone else found these simulations to be just training games. I would still like to add that even if Bean was aware of actual soldiers dying, he had a very them-or-us point of view and a concept that the soldiers wo gave their lives in battle did it for the sake of humanity... i do not think that means he didn't understand the value of life, but the value of defense and sacrifice for the human species.
As of opposed to the film, buggers in the book were not waiting for humans to be willing to open to some sort dialogue before the final battle. Moreover, in the book, we are told what the buggers did in the Earth, which I found horrifying, but at the same time very much like boy-targeted comics -- it's odd, how us adults find horrifying what a child find amusing, perhaps that's because for a child it is not real at all.
No one here watched 2001: A Space Odyssey
It's almost like everyone who criticizes enders game never bothered to read the sequels.
True words...
I'd dare say most of them never actually read the original.
Didn't Card say he only wrote enders game to lead into speaker for the dead?
@@JCdental yep
@Gunnar Thurman The Speaker sequels do a good job of dealing with a lot of the issues raised by Ender's Game, sure, but Card's views on sexuality are very distressingly on full display in the Shadow saga, which was released even more recently. I reread the post-formic war arc only a month ago and it made me wince how many times the specific phrase "make babies" was used verbatim, and how forcefully the idea that having children = ultimate happiness was shoved on readers.
There's even a moment which stood out as grossly offensive wherein a character who had been firmly established as asexual manages to "recover", enter into a heterosexual marriage, and father children. Then the ultimate conclusion of the story is the lead character managing to have a whopping 9 newborn babies all at once (against his will), and although it has a bitter ending, this is treated as an achievement rather than an atrocious invasion of privacy.
As good as the Speaker trilogy did at patching some of the sloppy messages made by Game, it's clear that Card's own views have never really changed and never will.
I thought the whole point of the book was to reflect on the actions taken by everyone leading up to the genocide. This being made apparent when ender becomes the speaker for the dead and realizes his grave mistakes
Enders wasn't in the middle of Peter and Valentine, he was both of them, capable of vicious offense but also possessing empathy and the ability to care or love. The conflict between those two halves was what made him such a good commander and also so conflicted with himself.
Yes! A lot of the book was him battling between the two viewpoints, if I remember correctly. It destroys him when he must act like his brother, and thoughts similar to his brother's constanly pop in his mind. He kind of is in the middle, but only in the sense that he follows his brother's ideology when there is no other choice. He favors his sister and her concepts of goodness and abhors his brother's sociopathic, calculating, violent tendencies.
Precisely so!
@@SeanVitoand yet his brothers' ways are what allows his sister to exist. Did you see this point ?
Ender's game and Speaker for the Dead were originally going to be one book. And in Speaker we see an extensive rebuke of the militaristic approach that is prevalent in Ender's game. And even if there was no Speaker for the Dead, in the first book there are already enough pages devoted to put into question the validity and morality of the war effort and the child abuse. The key phrase is "put into question". The answer you come up with by reading the book will reflect on you more than it does on the author.
Additionally, the issue of gay marriage and homophobia doesn't come up in the book at all, except for the fact that there aren't any openly gay characters, but then again, most of the characters in the book are children. If we had to scrutinize the morality and politics of artists to judge their art, first, we would have to embark on a investigative journey before we decide to read a book or even listen to a song; and second, we would have to throw away quite a lot of masterpieces.
Exactly. We shouldnt even expect gay characters becauseof how few characters there are.
People constantly claim to support freedom of speech but act the opposite by constantly being butthurt.
The day authors have to pander to every possible reader in existence they're gonna quit writing because all the fun would have been stripped from it.
It's still military sci fi. Reading this to witch hunt for militaristic views and expecting recreational sex is besides the point in every way imaginable, especially considering it's about kids.
People will write and express things you don't like. Get on with it.
I always thought the ending to Ender's Game kinda negated the apparent militaristic mindset of the book, because it seems to imply that conflict is a result of lack of communication. But then again I never read any of the sequels, so I'm not sure.
Yeah it's definitely the result of the lack of communication. The next book is literally called speaker for the dead
I agree. I also think it negates the militaristic mindset by showing how Ender, a soldier who in said mindset is only there to obey and not to think, defies this by showing remorse for his actions, even if he was "only following the chain of command".
Lack of understanding has driven violence by one group against another for all history. How very human to have our response to the Formics be genocide.
Contrary to what a lot of people here are saying, you absolutely don't need to have read the sequels to understand Ender's game.
You are right about the core message of the book/film. Fear and a failure to communicate lead to genocide.
I think a violent, gritty, true-to-the-book, mini series, anime adaptation would be better than the feature-length Hollywood movie.
Anime would solve the child-actor problem
Exactly. The whole thing with Bonzo being smaller then Ender was laughable. Considering they are like two years apart in age. Doesn’t help that you can see Asa Butterfield holding back when pushing the other actor. It truly was a dumb casting choice.
The movie was okay, and we have enough of that in anime, starting with Gundam
I’d prefer a well done series covering the events of Enders Game through Children of the Mind.
It would have to run in Nolan-esque timeline setting and includes books about Formic Wars. In any case, just like Dune - it happens mostly in character's head.
“There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'.”
― Larry Niven
Idk about that one. You would need to explain more than simply using a petty insult
@@Rumham729 I think it's fairly obvious that a character may espouse views and opinions that differ from the authors own beliefs. If you need a more in depth explanation than that, I suggest you contact the author of the quote (Author Larry Niven) and ask him.
@@Phreddy666 I agree with what you are saying, but disagreeing wouldn't make someone an idiot. that's all I'm saying. People might have valid counterarguments for sure.
After Ender "Speaks" a death on Lusitania the Catholic Priest says, "Almost thou persuadist me to become a humanist". The religion of the Enderverse books is unquestionably Humanism. Card, conversely, is unquestionably Mormon.
Sister Carlotta tells Bean that he won't have to believe in Christ in this life in order to make it to heaven. Bean tells her that she is a heretic and her views wouldn't pass muster with the Pope, "They don't even pass muster with me." replies Sister Carlotta
Fair enough, and no disparagement of anyone was intended. Although perhaps Niven intended it.
@@Rumham729
Ender’s reaction when he finds that the war is real is in the sequels where he atones for his part in the war by becoming a pacifist who celebrates the lives of individuals by researching and presenting their life stories after death and he helps the race he tried to eliminate when understands them.
There is no controversy with this book. Everything related to "scandal" is based purely on Card's religious beliefs. The only negative thing about Ender's Game is how terrible the movie was.
Are you just another "the book was better" person or do you truly believe the movie sucked cuz I loved it
@@__-yu2mz
I liked the movie to, and had never read the books.
However I recently read the books, and my god they're right. The people who always say "the book was better" are legitimately correct. The book was awesome, and had a huge twist that was ignored in the movie, and makes the movies ending actually impactful.
I enjoyed the movie. I think it was cast very well. The performances are great across the board. The production design is hit and miss. The aliens look great, the humans look a little too Starship Troopers. Finally, the script and direction were kinda bland. It doesn't want to do more than adapt the book, as efficiently as possible. Paul Verhoeven should have directed it, then it probably would have been perfect.
@@__-yu2mz I personally think the book is genuinely just better. That usually is the case anyway tbh. It's pretty rare to have an adaptation turn out well like Jurassic Park or Lord of the Rings.
it's just much more fleshed out. The book would be better adapted as a HBO/Netflix series, but they would probably just mess it up somehow and a lot of stuff still just wouldn't work practically and I don't see anyone having the willingness to give it the budget it would need.
@@Riflery Ohh and you have to listing "Ender's Game Alive" It's amazing!
I find it funny that people see things in the book that just aren’t there. For example, the news article that quoted the genocide stance… it’s missing the part before it. The part where Graff states that he doesn’t want to go to war and that he thinks the only reason we are at war with the Formics is because they can’t communicate with us, nor with them. Which means, there’s no way to negotiate with them or try to parlay peace. This information is literally one or two paragraphs ahead of the accusatory one quoted.
Likewise, the book is extremely anti-war. At nearly every turn.
But, It does have a lot of themes of parental neglect. Enders own parents overlook Peters behavior or just “aren’t involved enough to know it’s going on”, to the point that the only reason Peter hasn’t killed Ender is because Valentine protects him. The School is the same. Lots of child neglect there, too. Then, we get to the Battle School and there are only two adults there that don’t engage in Child Neglect. Graff is hurting Ender on purpose, for a purpose. But, he basically watches over him constantly and tries to ensure his safety and well-being at every opportunity. Then, Graffs second in command literally tries to get Graff removed from the school entirely after what happens with the fight and death.
Heck, even after they win the war, the adults basically try to paint Ender as the monster for killing two other children, rather than any of the adults involved in his life, or the circumstances that lead to any of it. Graff evenpoints out that the only reason they got away with what they did to the kids is because the prosecution would have had to prove that Ender could still do what he did,if they hadn’t done what they did to him. This is not something Graff is even pleased about.
Most of the themes of the book are that parents don’t pay enough attention to children and what they say or do. Not just parents, but adults in general. That kids only matter to adults when they can use them for something. Adults make no move to understand kids. This is mirrored with The Formics. Communication is not tried at all with the Formics when the fleets arrive. And, the Formics can only plead their case to a mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted child who can’t even tell if he’s awake half the time.
It’s always amusing to me when people get something out of a medium or a work that was never there. That says a lot about you, rather than the work, if that is what you are getting out of it.
A book about child neglect and how society exploits or beats down the gifted and extraordinary children is a “pro war” book? It’s “anti-gay”? It’s pro-genocide? It’s political? The things the guilty conscience brings to the table when confronted with reality.
I bet these are the same morons who think Starship Troopers is fascist propaganda.
Hollywood won’t allow kids flying on wires, but the book has them committing genocide on an entire species….
Yeah because the book is words on a page and Hollywood is using real people… I think we can give them a pass on that one
The idea that Enders game is pro war is ridiculous to anyone who’s read any of the others in the series.
Or just read and understood the book
Or just watch the end of the movie
Politically opinions are prevalent in many different literary genres. It seems, more importantly, are they popular with the trends at that time and with those elites who decide what we can say or think.
The Ender saga is one of the best science fiction books you’ll ever read. I’m on the Shadow saga now.
I think people who believe it's "pro war" or "pro genocide" didn't read it, or its sequels, which the novel version of the story was written to support the sequels
"when one is confronted with violence they must respond with violence" - whoever thinks this is the purpose of the book simply hasn't continued reading the rest of the books in the series.
Also, I'm gay, married, gender nonconforming, jewish, far left, and I know I don't speak for the universe of other people who share one or more of these qualities with me when I say this, but I still want to put it here in writing that I not only adore these books deeply, but they also are books that left me changed after I read them, in some subtle but core aspects of myself. I am sure that if me and Orson Scott Card ever found ourselves stuck together in an elevator or something and we started talking about how we think things should be in the country and what we dislike most, we would probably not get along - which is generally the case these days at a time when we over-identify with our politics and politics-lite and enjoy seething at each other. But who he is, the man who weaved together this universe and breathed life into it with such gentleness and brilliance - my impression of him in the elevator would be dead-wrong. Its not his job to see the beauty in me, but its my job to see the beauty in him, and I do.
OK, first let's start with the reason for wiping the bugs out. They REFUSED all attempts at diplomacy, because they had no concept of it until the end when there was just one queen left. There was, literally, no other choice.
Second: In the book, Ender was led to believe that he was always in a mere simulation because they didn't want to take the chance that he would realize 1) he was ending an entire species, but also 2) that his "winning" order required the absolute sacrifice of almost every HUMAN on the ships...because those were MANNED ships, not drones (in the book, the movie messed that up). Had he not made the sacrificial strategy, there was no way humanity would have won and the aliens would have come back and committed genocide on humanity. To the bugs, genocide was just the way things were done. They didn't worry about wiping out species. It's like asking if marching army ants in the jungle here on Earth are worried about wiping out species in their way. When Ender realizes how he was used, he then goes on to try and make amends (in the following books). When you're fighting an enemy that either CAN''T or (worse) WON'T consider genocide an evil...then you will often be required to use whatever level of force necessary to secure the safety of your own people. Thinking beings SHOULD always leave a door to diplomacy open, because if the enemy are also thinking, they may be persuaded to accept a diplomatic resolution. But if they're not, then the defenders may be forced to take ultimate action. Their species may be stained for the future, but at least they'll HAVE a future in which to do their best to make amends.
I have loved Cards work since the 80s starting with the Ender series and while I do not agree with a lot of his politics what has amazed me about his books is that in much of them they talk of tolerance of the other. Most of the time the protagonist is an outsider themselves. The Ender books including Shadow are not pro military, they are the exact opposite. Seventh Son, Treason, Wyrms, Songmaster and many others all deal with main characters who are different and suffer abuse for being so. I cannot explain how an author can write works steeped in tolerance of those who are different while seemingly hold personal contrary views. I will continue to love these books.
#HFY humanity fuck yeah, but seriously Ender's game isnt pro military it shows the horror and the violence of it.
I’m super surprised by this controversy since it was the core conflict of the book. I can only guess that those who criticize it are not intelligent enough to read the multiple perspectives presented in the book. It was the dehumanizing of the most human type “concept” a child. This child has to go through a brutal militaristic training because the entire human race is threatened with extinction from an alien race. However it goes deeper, that the aliens actually didn’t understand the individual nature of humans, that their society sees individuals as finger nails and queens as individuals and by the time they understand it, it was too late, they were locked in the war with humanity and they knew there would be no forgiveness, but it’s why they held back their fleet at the final conflict, in hopes that some hope of communication could occur. Ender meanwhile was getting subliminal attempts of communication. When ender commits genocide it destroys him, he sees himself as a villain, the military sees him as a hero, it’s very much like Oppenheimers feelings regarding the nuclear bomb.
It's quite sad that soldiers are mandated to read ender's game, but not the sequel that where ender pretty much commits a form of suicide as a consequence of him dealing with his guilt. Guilt that was the driving force of his life for every day after the genocide.
I think they're smart enough to deal with the emotions of being through combat by themselves without needing a book to teach them about emotional pain. Seriously what kind of world do you live in ? They read Ender's Game because it speaks about strategic thinking, that's all.
I remember reading this book several times growing up, both while being intensely bullied and afterwards. I found the comments that the children threw around between each other to be fairly accurate. The main exception being Bonzo who was written as very extreme on purpose. Even Rose the Nose playing into his stereotype is something i saw real kids doing this to cut off jokes before they happen.
I was a gifted kid and read 'Ender's Game' when I was around 11 or 12 and absolutely loved it. It's a story that I can imagine we would devise in play within my circle of gifted friends. It appears that those critiquing this novel are at times reaching so as to appear hurt or harmed. It's a fair and fun novel depicting gifted kids just being kids outside of the 'game'. Enders Game is neither pro or anti gay or lgbt, nor is it promoting child abuse. People need to stop reading into the book looking for faults and just enjoy reading it. Wonderful novel...totally recommend.
O.S.C. is a BRILLIANT author, I read all branches of the Ender series and found Ender's Shadow to be my favourite.
Darn I need to get that one now I have Enders game ender in exile and speaker of the dead
@@Yeshua_is-Cool All good books but wait till you get into Ender's Shadow. That SHIT movie, Bean was some kid who looked like a catalogue model or something, and he's only in it for a second, whereas he's basically one of the main players---THE main player, imo, but that's just favouritism
THANK YOU; I'm sick of lame cinema-goers who'll watch any old shit and say it's good. I HATED the movie adaption, every part of it, and giving the fucking Ansible away in the first scene---talentless twats.
Nah, he isn't. Like Herbert he has great ideas and worldbuilding, but sucks as writer, writing one dimensional Mary Sue's and Gary Stews and thoroughly s....ks at pacing.
@@piotrd.4850 Don't really care about characters in sci-fi; in fact, keep that shit away---last thing I wanna read is some twat wittering on about the flaws of a character, the pros and tribulations...go read Dickens. Not you, I'm addressing authors who neglect actual concept and narrative to "explore character"; that shit is for drama alone, sure you can have both, but the fact that O.S.C. and J.G.Ballard never bothered meant nothing in the long run; the CONCEPT is why I read sci-fi, if I want character, I'll read general fiction. Hope you don't think I'm having a go, just telling you how I think
"When Ender is confronted with violence he responds with deadly force."
Anyone who criticizes this aspect in Ender's Game is speaking from pure ignorance.
Ender spends the rest of his life doing penance. In "Ender in Exile" he provokes Bean's son to beat him to death and almost succeeds. Ender tells the boy beating him that he deserves it and asks to be killed. Ender writes a book "Speaker for the Dead" anonymously that condemns himself and turns his own name into a curse. The entirety of the sequels to Ender's Game is about his guilt.
Wow I didn't know any of this when I read the book. I never got any of what was stated in this review from reading it. I read the book and enjoyed it and don't care about the authors politics. It is a good read and that is what I care about. Same thing with the book Starship Troopers
"Question for everyone: should the political opinions of an author be kept separate from their work?" It all depends on whether she pushes them on her work. All I can say is that I rarely so much "humanism", especially in "Xenocide", in any other SF book... and I have more than 1'000 under the belt.
I haven’t read Xenocide yet, I’m reading ender in exile right now but so far reading these books I think politics should be detached from books because seeing/reading a different view on just life itself like through Enders eyes makes it so good
I was raised Mormon in the US, I had no idea that "bugger" was a British derogatory word for a gay person, I doubt Card did either. That seems like quite a stretch haha. I'm not Mormon, but there are lots of people who have written great books that have wacky religious beliefs. He definitely isn't the first haha. Interesting video! I always find it interesting how a writer's beliefs, culture, upbringing, and family structures have to do with their writing, especially thematically
I am reminded of another author who was a powerful political leader, was actually genocidal, and was homophobic (despite the fact that at least one of his top generals was gay). He believed in gun control (i.e. that ordinary civilian citizens should not be allowed to possess guns), was a vegetarian, and claimed to be a faithful Christian (of the Roman Catholic faith). Should people be lambasted for reading Mein Kampf? Of course not. Do people who read Mein Kampf agree with the author's political and personal opinions? Given the number of people who have read it, I certainly hope that not all of his readers do (although, sadly, there are are far too many neo-Nazis and white supremacists who agree with the author's views - and only one of them would be "far too many"). Is Mein Kampf a "good" piece of art to read? I have no idea, since I have never read it (and do not plan to do so).
Concerning O.S.C., I certainly do not agree with his ultra-right-wing political views, nor his views on gay-marriage. But the Ender and Shadow series of books were damned good reads, and I make no apology for saying so; I really do appreciate his art. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the Ender and Shadow series were the best SF series of books that I have ever read. I did find the movie a bit disappointing, though. (But then, again, I often do find movies based on novels disappointing; for example, I think the 1984 release of Dune was the absolute worst novel-based SF movie ever made. If there is a novel that I want to read and I know that there is a soon-to-be-released movie about it, I will often wait to watch the movie first, then read the novel. It is much less disappointing, that way. ;-)
And by the way, those who think that Ender's Game unconditionally supports war and genocide (or xenocide) in a positive light, obviously did not read the same book that I did, nor Card's subsequent novels taking place in that universe. After Ender was made to realise what he had done (i.e. that it was real war and not just simulated battles, and that he wiped out a whole sentient species), his absolute remorse was much deeper in the novel, than was depicted in the movie, and he did everything he could to make amends, and restore the Formics. Like in the movie, the original book ends with the beginning of his quest to find a nurturing world on which he could "plant" the Formic queen's egg. Even the leaders of the Battle School (like Graff, Anderson and Dap - the Dap-in-the-novel had a much more senior role than the Dap-in-the-movie) regretted what they did to the children under their care, but felt their actions were necessary for the preservation of the Human Race.
The irony I find with the controversies is that the book very much taught me about perspective and understanding other people. His views are his own. That does not mean one can't learn from this book. I've read it several times and always seem to come back to it at least once a year. The story grows with you and as you mature as a person, the more you learn from it. I haven't gotten past Speaker yet. Hopefully I'll do so this time!
I own all four books. I love them all, as much as they are all unique from each other.
Marines are not required to read books from the commandants reading list, it is a fucking recommendation.
Enders game is still an amazing read fuck the haters
All the critiques of Ender's Game presented in the video stem from a fundamental failure to understand the work. Nowhere in the novel are the criticized actions condoned. Far from it - Ender's harming of bullies is explicitly presented as having been intentionally allowed to happen (even set up) by military leaders as part of evaluation and training, with the controversy behind that even being present in the world of the book itself. Ender is only "forced" to violence because he was literally given no suitable alternative. The notion of violence being necessary for survival is obviously put to question both hypothetically by Ender and others ahead of time and then proven wrong after the fact when he learns the intent of the aliens. The "good" of the outlawing of religion is consistently undermined, and the restriction on the number of children is presented as unpopular. Even the military "trainers" are aware of what is morally problematic about their actions and at times even self loathing, hardly thinking that serves to apologize or condone.
The entire point of moral dilemmas is to reflect that moral right and wrong isn't always easy or obvious. Likewise, many of our best worlds of fiction are messy or contain aspects we don't morally approve if, precisely because that is how life and actual society operates.
The book is outwardly clinical in its presentation of these actions and concepts, and implicitly it bemoans some and goes as far as to condem others.
Appropriately enough, people who whiff on all this exhibit the sort of shallow and easily mislead thinking that the book explores with the Locke and Demothenes personal. That's just another unfortunate reality of the real world that Card was not afraid to accurately represent, without condemnation, in his work.
As for my understanding of the term "militarism" is the dominance of military-centered political thinking and not the believe, that a country should maintain a strong fighting force to defend its national interests. What militarism in all its consequence actually means is, that the civil institutions of a country are mostly if not completely subordinated to the military and its goals. In other words one could say, that a regular democratic society, is usually a society and a country posessing an army, while a militaristic society is rather an army posessing a state. YOUR definition of "militarism" would mean, that most countrys of the world including most western democracys would qualify as "militaristic" societys. Most western countrys usually prefer deplomacy and trade over military conflict if possible but maintain large and verry capable fighting forces. By the definition i know they would not qualify as militaristic.
Money is a military power. It was created by empires as payment for military duty and has been since then.
The controversy seems to come from folks that haven't read the whole book.
Card never intended for this to be a kids book
Great video and such a soothing voice.
You've earned a sub and deserve far more, my friend.
I have reread the book several times over the decades and it never occurred to me that “bugger-lover” or even the butt-watching joke had anything to do with male homosexuality. Ender’s Game is one of my favorite novels (the movie was so-so) and all these pseudo-controversies won’t change that. The Ender series and the Ender’s Shadow series are all good, except Children of the Mind didn’t ring my bell. I’m rereading them again.
Great content as always. Thanks for the thorough research and such a well structured flow.
Imagine Ender's Game being inappropriate for school reading in 2023 with the books being allowed in schools these days. The author is based.
I found this video interesting as I was not aware of Orson Scott Cards personnel views when I both read the book and watched the film. In my mind this answers the question put forth in this video as if you remain ignorant of the values of the author then you can judge the work independent of this bias. However, if you are aware of the authors views, reasons, etc behind the work it influences your view of it.
I get it if people are upset by Card's real-world comments. But the critiques of his actual works are done in such bad faith
I love Ender's Game. Easily one of my favorite sci-fi books. But it is hard to knowingly spend my money on someone that thinks I am inferior to them and undeserving of a family. It is more than a simple difference in politics. That being said, I do not think Card's controversial ideologies show up in any of his Ender series.
I feel the same way. His politics go against mine, but I still buy his Ender books. The way I look at it is that he is getting paid in advance for these books. Whether I buy the book or not won't effect him or the publisher in any way. If he was a new writer or it was a small publisher not buying the books would make a difference but since he's so established not buying his books would only cause him to retire early and his books would still be republished and he would still get royalties from them.
Bean, the Atheist, says in "Ender's Shadow, "If God is in charge then he ought to be fair, and if he isn't fair, then why was SIster Carlotta so happy he was in charge." If you can't recognize that Card is being fair to all points of view when reading this, then you aren't being fair to Card.
Did we read the same book? Ender did not immediately jump to violence, he always tried the diplomatic solution first but Ender was also a realist so he would hope for the best but prepare for the worst. The book also makes it clear the buggers first invasion was a mistake, that they did not recognize us as being a sentient lifeform, they were saddened by the destruction they brought on humanity, had no intentions of returning for another invasion attempt, and understood that as a species we would not forgive the transgression. All of the battles in the end were around the buggers homeworld in anticipation of our arrival, and wholly defensive. What this sets up is a sympathetic villain, that we are intended to feel ashamed for destroying so my impression of Enders Game is that it is Anti Violence, Anti War, Anti Genocide.
The kids are generally male and sleep nude in Enders game. I would not describe it as homophobic
Nudity has nothing to do with being sexual and the characters being nude together doesn't mean that they were ok with homosexuality or the author was ok with it.
Ok here is the problem w/the movie.
The movie is amazing. Its just...not Ender's Game. Its not the story, its not the characters, its not the world of Ender's Game. Its just a good sci-fi movie that is rather generic.
Also Peter isnt a Psychopath. He is infact incredibly intelligent and very determined toward one goal. Read the sequels.
It was the PG-13 that messed the movie up. A darker, violent, & gritty series would have done it justice. Like Ender killing 2 other kids in a bloody manner. And we all know Bonzo deserved it. Also the menace that was Peter. Which made Valentine that much more of a source of goodness in a cruel world.
Card is a complete madlad love the dude
Enders Game both the novel and film in my opinion are garbage.
And yes I’ve actually read the book first then saw the film, because it was part of my English 2 class.
And recently I’ve tried reading Ender Exile but after 23 pages in I was already bored and neither invested or interested, it’s awful.
I’d rather read a Micheal Crichton Sci-fi book because he actually can write better books, well he use too until he passed away sadly.
I’d also rather watch something like Prometheus than the Enders Game film, it’s that bad in my opinion, Prometheus however is actually way better.
The film is definitely bad. Cringe-worthy, actually.
But don't be so hard on the book. It's good. It's celebrated for a reason.
It obviously didn't capture you, and that's okay. Try giving it another read at some point?
People are offended by everything
I like the whole series. The themes are explored well and conclusions are well written. I find that there are paralelles with other works too. The mockingjay series where catnis shoots grey when she realises return to a hunger games. Oldmans war has the same themes be it on the ironic side where its not kids but old men becoming soldiers. Then there is the parafaith war also exploring a god like character. Even in the dune saga there is the theme of a "saviour" that has exceeded his bounds and turned utopia into distopia. Battlefield Earth paralleles the destruction of species, first humans barely surviving but also learning from an extinct species relics the tlaxu made extinct by taryl and his Psychlos.
To say Ender responded to violence with deadly force implies Ender predetermined to kill the boy who attacked him! I reject this supposition entirely! The boy who attacked Ender was bigger stronger and a bully Ender responded the only way he could to survive and the towel hook penetrating the other boys skull was an accident and not something that Ender even foresaw much less planned. His response however was precisely what is required when attacked by a bully, you have to make certain that they feel sufficient pain from their attempt to subdue you with fear that they will never do it again. Even if the bully wins the fight they will think twice about attacking you a second time. The reason this is especially applicable in warfare is that the doctrine of restrained engagement fails to win and merely prolongs war which means many more people will die in the conflict than need to! Therefore the most caring and human way to conduct warfare when you are forced by an aggressor to defend yourself is to use maximum force with as much violence as possible to emphasize that you are fighting for survival and will expend every resource to defeat them as quickly as possible. This approach of maximum force when defending yourself always causes the aggressor to think that maybe they bit off more than they can chew and while they are having that thought you launch another vicious attack with all the strength that you can muster. By taking this approach you will likely cause the attacker to flee because they were not prepared for such a response when they obviously thought you were easy prey prior to them attacking you. If you show any restraint to a bully they will always interpret that as weakness and it will only encourage them to continue their aggressive behavior. I speak from personal experience of multiple incidents with gangs and or individual bully's growing up. My first encounter with a bully I chose to run away rather than fight. This embolden them to attempt to bully me into allowing them onto a carnival ride for free about a month later. On the second occasion I looked directly into his eyes and let him know in clear language that I took his threat as a threat to my life and told him my focus would be entirely on ending him before his friends could pry me off of him should he choose to attack me and He backed down and walked away. I never had another problem with that bully or his followers after that.
Politics is everything. So says that old commercial.
Part of my issue with the English language is the ability to interpret however one wants.
If sci-fi fans can accept that Heinlein, a quasi-fascist pervert, and Isaac Asimov, a groper, then Card should be accepted too. Warts and all. No more idiotic attempts to excise him and his importance from the genre.
That's... not at all what's been happening. Sci fans had appreciated both those authors works, *and* have also been criticizing them. For both their personal opinions, and the issues in their books. Sci fi fans aren't some monolithic hivemind who think in one way only. People recognize that Ender's Game is a cool book and important to the genre. Doesn't mean they have to like or appreciate Card though. He can get fucked.
Heinlein was in no way a fascist, but point stands. How many people still watch Roman Polanski movies with the knowledge that he screwed a child.
Where is that image from at 9:09??? That is some great imagery.
It's great, isn't it. www.deviantart.com/nickdespain/art/Ender-s-Dream-383760842
The sequel is the GOAT.
I've read this book (original, non-updated 1991 version) for the first time a few years ago, and I really cringed at some of the language used, but I had to remember that this was what we'd say is "a product of its time." The parts of the book that sort of bothered me were the constant references to nudity among the boys - sleeping with nothing on, and especially the infamous shower scene - we all know how the mind's eye works when reading, and it felt awkward having images like that in my head, however briefly. All in all, I did enjoy the book as well as the other books in the series. I hadn't even heard about Card's anti-gay views until much later, but I always try and not let an author's views affect my enjoyment of their work... Lovecraft and Rowling included.
So what you’re saying is the Orson Scott Card is incredibly based, and those who oppose his views can’t cope.
If youre super based, you could think of the formic (aka bugger) invasion as a metaphor for the non-white invasion of the west, then you'll really enjoy the book. jk don't do dat, das racis
@@Trentsum so literally Lord of the Rings? I can see it at the core
I think you should reread the book a couple of times then try making this video again.
well the fact that people are trying to cancel him for his religious views seems to be pretty good evidence of the fact that we live in a religiously intolerant society so i don't know why people would find that aspect of the book controversial. it's like he's almost predicting the plight he was going to end up in.
and he is right that (in)tolerance goes both ways. you have ideologies that are mutually exclusive and abhorrent to each other. and in that case, it seems like the intolerance is exactly the same. it does not allow for a difference of opinion and it is hegemonic, prescriptive, coercive and dictatorial. you are not allowed to not think like us.
that's where the progressive side has gone off the rails. it's become as bad as the religious right. it used to be true liberals embraced "live and let live". but now that they have cultural power, they dictate the terms of our actions, our words, our thoughts and our beliefs. fall in line... or else. a secular religion with DOGMAS and HERESIES and CARDINAL SINS... even EXCOMMUNICATION. delightful.
at least when it comes to ideologies, card and colonel graff prove themselves right again. the aim, apparently, is to eradicate the other... completely.
Very well said
his ideology is based on non tolerance, anyone who has a problem with it isn't doing anything worse than he did to begin with
Card probably got paid a flat price when he sold the rights. So how well The movie(s) do, Card will get paid the same. Which is nothing.
Also, since these students are main characters, and are supposed to be (in the books) 6yrs old, the lack of a romantic subplot is an blessing,
8:07 "Validates the concept that confronted with violence, you must respond with violence."
There is no other response. I think the problem comes that people have tried to redefine "violence" in contemporary times. But true violence can only ever be stopped through greater violence. If a person, entity, organization, etc; is committing violence, the only **reasonable** response is greater violence. Imagine a world where the response to Germany's violence in 1939 had been met with only dialogue? That logic is flawed. If someone, something, or some group of people means to do true violence, the ONLY response is to end the existence of those doing violence.
"Violence is the supreme authority, by which all other authority is derived."
I don't think it validates the concept, it just state that violence against violence does work and might be necessary, at least in self-defense. Let's just point out that Ender was very resourceful beyond violence, as he was very little and insanely clever.
@@okutaviof self-defense is a very small use case for when violence is needed. All violence must be met with greater violence.
The fastest path to peace is war.
identity politics ruin everything
Most of these criticisms are failure of reading comprehension on the part of the critics, mostly because they don't care what the book actually says, but want to grandstand their own opinions.
8:25 I really hated the movie's casting of Bonzo, in the book Bonzo was a bully a full head larger than Ender, not a loud mouth a head shorter. Ender was supposed to be (apparently) out classed by size and weight when confronted by Bonzo in the shower. The actor was fine, he did a good job with what he had, but he didn't come across as threatening, other than as a egotist ass.
It could not be LESS in favour of militarism. That's the whole point. This misinterpretation by ignorant people is annoying.
I think "bugger" was inspired by a certain racial pejorative that was popularized in the United States. The phrase "bugger-lover" and the very basic structure of the word bugger leads me to believe this as well as the American perspective that Card would have been writing from, having grown up in the US during the Civil Rights movement and amid racial tension.
How dare u compare the two groups. One wants to wipe us all out, and the other one is an advanced space-faring insectoid alien species. XD jk jk
It is the bad guys who most often use the term "Bugger" in the book.
Card's opinions are often accused of permeating through his story? How is that a criticism? How would it be possible for an author to write something completely devoid to what they believe in or what they think about? What utter nonsense. I don't know how anyone could say anything more valueless.
And Card is scrupulously fair to other points of view that conflict with his own in all of his books.
A little late on this one?
The man's a Mormon, so I just assumed he had *opinions*
Like what?
@@legogenius1667 "all living being, regardless of there humanity deserve your moral cosideration; for they, as you were begotten by this universe and are as such your brothers
exept the gays, miss me with that shit"
-Orson Scott Card presumably
@@JCdental I'm a member of the same church and I'm well aware of the associated views on gay marriage. The things that are being said here about him are inaccurate.
@@legogenius1667 What is inaccurate?
@@JCdental We don't see gay people as bad people or anything, and they're welcome in our church meetings and activities. We believe that marriage was meant to be between man and woman only, but that doesn't mean we won't treat gays as real people with value like anyone else. We simply follow the teachings of Christ on the matter. He taught against the sin, but still loved and respected the sinner.
I mean, ngl, I personally think that if someone reads Ender's Game and thinks that its somehow jingoistic, they either didn't finish the book, they're illiterate, or they're jingoistic themselves and use the book as a scapegoat for "making them think problematic things".
Also, as someone with some very fundamental differences in belief from Card, I really didn't see any Mormon propaganda in the books. I think the books are instead a critique of the philosophy that "the ends justify the means" and very clearly asserts that no, the means really do matter. It's a call to being culturally open, to not seeing ones own culture as superior, even if it is entirely alien to your own. And also the books seem to try to fight against the trope in fiction that "intelligence is evil". Sure, Card himself might also believe some problematic things, but to then shut your eyes and pretend that Ender's Game and its 3 sequels are also guilty of the same issues is horribly horribly unethical and illiberal.
The author of ender's game is like HP Lovecraft made iconic stories of their genre but irl not the best people and we can't deny they're not
What does someone's politics have anything to do with the story
In my personality opinion The Three Body Problem has way more issues than Ender's Game and that recently won the Hugo Award and might be getting a Netflix adaptation.
These people have clearly not read the rest of the series. Card goes on to explore the ramifications of these decisions and how Ender dealt with it
Orson Scott Card's controversial statements aren't NEARLY the worst thing I've heard. If you read his essay "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" you will see that his views, while unpopular and debatable, do not come from a place of hatred.
No, it comes from a place of love -- specifically his loving to send gay men to prison for the rest of their lives just for being gay - a position for which he argues explicitly.
Thanks for talking about homophobia!
Yes, we can obviously seperate an author from their work. A book stands on its own, whoever its writer was. But it's also important not to simply disregard an author's horrible opinions - like homophobia - because we like their book. Talent and success is never an excuse for being an asshole loll. Keeping silent about homophobia while openly supporting a homophobic author can easily be viewed as being complicit, and for good reasons. I guess when it happens, we just need to talk about it a bit.
People who fail at reading comprehension, should at least understand that DESCRIBING something does not equate to condemning or supporting something. Ender's Game is one of few books, which to extent which it is possible, meeting of TRULY ALIEN mindsets, mismatch of basic comprehension of and outlook on the universe. Whole point of the book - the other , in different setting, was Red Storm Rising - was that none of the participants not only don't have complete picture, but even lack tools to understand context of unfolding events. But again - people who accuse Ender's Game of 'promoting militarism', probably think that both movie and book Starship Troopers promoted 'fascism'. PS: that was not genocide, but xenocide and whole thing is idea that two very ALIEN cultures had different concepts of sapience, sentience, ethics and war and life itself. PS: I'm waiting for these people to discover Warhammer 40k, where Ender's Game is just another day in the office :P
I am a very happily married gay man who loves sci-fi in all its manifestations and thematic possibilities. While it seems very distasteful to me that Card is so hell-bent on trying to stop gay marriage, I do not allow his views to dictate what I read. If the novel were all about the evils of gay people and a manifesto of anti-gay rhetoric, then the answer is straightforward, I simply would not read the book. But as the author himself has stated, the book is not about gay marriage or gay anything; it’s a novel about the future, about family, and responsibility. And if I don’t read this book out of anger at the author’s political stances (that are not reflected in the book!), the only one to suffer here is me. And yes, I still listen to Michael Jackson’s music even though I abhor what he did. I have no problem separating the talent from the figure of the artist.
Actually it was never proven that Michael Jackson had sex with children. It was a trick question: did he SLEEP with them. It was a sleep over, so literally he was sleeping in the same room they were sleeping in.
Just finished the book for the first time, and I’m struggling to see how this book was in anyway pro-war or militaristic. To me it was pretty clear from the beginning that creating child soldiers and training them to commit genocide was ethically wrong. That being said, I felt that Card did a great job with illustrating the genocide’s inevitability through his discussions of space travel and time; was there time for understanding on either side, human or Formic? It’s difficult to say. Nevertheless, he follows up these discussions by talking about the understanding from the Bugger Queen, when she realized that “the humans hadn’t forgiven us.” I absolutely just love the last line in the book, which for me is both hopeless and yet somehow hopeful: “He looked a long time.”
The problem I see with the movie is that Ender does not feel remorse because of the loss of the entire human fleet, but because of wiping out the bug race. This is the biggest flaw, and the scriptwriters are being sanctimonious. The bugs attacked Earth first, and they are bugs for what they are. Ender then even tried to resuscitate them by looking for a new planet for them? He seems to forget that the bugs tried to wipe out the entire human race. You defeated them and that is it. This just does not seem right to any person with common sense.
The movie may not, but the book does, very, very much. It is the central conflict of the book.
There is a difference between Genocide and Xenocide. Genocide is against your own species and Xenocide is against an alien species. Both of which are horrible, one of them however, is a part of our survival instinct.
Look I hope the universe is like Star Trek and Star Wars but I don't assume that all life is the same and shares our morals and principles. In my opinion I think this is incredibly arrogant and harmful to our survival as species. I hope I'm wrong, I do. But I'll maintain my skepticism of alien life until they prove to us and we prove to them that even alien species can find common ground. Until then, I'll assume all aliens care only for their own species and we should expect hostilities between us.
it gets genius to write about genius. and genius is always going to be controversial and misunderstood.
As is often the case, I find the original novelette preferable to the novel. The novelette does not deal with the background of the conflict, the society, authoritarian state (although glimpses of it can be spotted), Enders family.... It is about the use of children, manipulating them to do the unthinkable - commit "xenocide" (as it will be called later). Grown ups knew that attacking the enemy homeworld is the way to win the war, but cannot bring themselves to do it; they rather manipulate children into the act.
Those who would ban this book should be reminded that children are used as soldiers, and manipulated into ruthlessness, here and now.
I do advocate judging literary works on their own merit, nor letting what we know about the author color our impressions, but now I am not so sure I read the novelette the way Card intended. Perhaps he was too subtle to penetrate my own worldview, so different from his. To me, the focus was not the war, but ruined childhood.
You are not wrong per say on the ruined childhood. You are wrong however on the belief that they manipulated children into doing their dirty work. I don’t know why, but a lot of people have this belief as well. They missed the part where the children were the next Alexander, or Napoleon. Each one of them was already on equal terms of aptitude as all of the adults. Except they were also being taught at a young age all of the things they needed to be greater then the adults. The point is they needed someone better then them. So in the books the government actually was pushing some people to have kids together. They were trying to produce as many Alexander’s as possible. Just to make their chances of getting the one necessary to win the war. They needed a fleet commander that could pull off things they couldn’t dream of. It was two parts really. Part one being that they were smarter in their tactics then the adults would be, against such an overwhelming force. Which would be achieved by training them in a newer manner then the way they were taught. They would be more adaptable then them. The second was that they needed to be fierce in their attack, and cunning. Since every adult already knew the fleet was there, and that this was no simulation. They would hesitate where no hesitation could be had. Again if you remember that the beginning battles were easy at first, but gradually became more lopsided against them. The reality was they had no quarter, no place to run and hide for a breather. They even lost people because of some of the mistakes made by the kids. They had to use the dr. earlier in the battles, or they would never even make it close to the Formics planet. The whole thing was an uphill battle from the beginning. Hence why Graff purposely put Ender in such a position from the beginning. He needed to be prepared for the fact he would not be given an easy fight ever. It would always be him against unfavorable odds. This is why Bonzo was allowed to go into the showers. They knew, but Graff let it happen. He needed Ender to realize wether in a game, or in real life. He needed to be able to think ahead at any given moment and formulate a plan that could win. Bonzo was set on killing him too, but Ender was always more or less naturally prepared for these kinds of situations. It was more of him coming to grips with it after was where he faltered. He wasn’t perfect. Every step was him having to overcome what was basically impossible odds. He was built up to be better prepared then any adult. The book succinctly shows the damage done to his psyche, and holds no punches back at showing how hard the world was for Ender with such a terrible weight. It even goes into this further with bean thinking about that weight in Enders shadow. Long story short is that the reality of the situation was the adults would be lacking far to greatly to win the war. So creating a scenario where they would have a better chance of winning was how the battle school program came about. Not because of evil means, or anything negative, beyond what couldn’t be controlled.
@@onepoundswallowtwopoundcoc3115 Sorry for a nitpick, but "per se", not "per say" - that's Latin. Ans, _please,_ do use paragraph breaks.
Anyway, you do make some valid points. I neglected that (supposedly reliably and early identified) "natural talents" were intensely trained while their psyche was still very plastic, leading to much faster results. I don't believe that the original novella features "directed reproduction" program - Card needed it for the novel series to produce Ender's siblings, including Peter the Hegemon. (BTW, I think that the whole arc of conflict on Earth was utterly unnecessary. If the series consisted only of the original novella (not novel) and _Speaker for the Dead,_ it would have been perfect.)
You are also right in pointing out that kids who believed they were playing in a simulation would have had much lover inhibition threshold against doing the unthinkable - xenocide.
However, their childhood was still ruined, and grown ups were well aware that attaching the Formics' home planet is the only way to win, but wanted somebody else to do it.
@@bazoo513 Not a nit pick at all. It is the correct way of saying. I hate that people feel like they have to call it a nit-pick, even though they are just correcting the use of language. I’m also on a phone, and haven’t seen a way to break it apart into paragraphs properly. So that’s why it is in blocks. As to the end, I agree with you. That was where I was referring to you being correct. They absolutely would never regain their childhood.
@@onepoundswallowtwopoundcoc3115 Thank you - I was afraid right after posting that I crossed the line. So, it seems we more or less agree, but emphasize different aspects of the work. That speaks highly of the work itself.
Cheers!
I have read a lot of OSCs work. And over time, I noticed something.
He will do scenes with a guy checking out a girl. Describing how he views her. And scenes with a girl checking out a guy. Same thing.
And there is zero wrong with that. Any fiction author needs to be able to do both.
But what I have noticed is, when it's a girl checking out a guy, OSC seems to go into a *lot* more detail.
Describing that rugged jawline. Those rough hands. The way his shirt accentuates his muscular shoulders.
Accurate to the real world
@@thomasjohnson3841 hahaha Indeed!
must be that mormon modesty shining through
Nice movie, Ender's game.
He was deceived, thinking it was a game; not an actual war, that may have not been neccassary.
No, "bugger" is not a British derogatory slang term for gay men. No-one ever calls a gay man a "bugger", however it is slang and is often directed at children. It would be perfectly normal to call someone a "cheeky bugger", in UK if they did something a bit sly and playful, but not malicious.
A good example would be someone who plays a surprising move in a friendly chess game, might get a joking "clever bugger aren't you", or someone walking into a group of kids playing football and being narrowly missed by the ball might be referred to as a "lucky bugger".
In short. Don't claim stuff is a slur when its not, especially when fact-checking this shit would take a few seconds. Its irresponsible and devalues your point.
Source - I'm British. This is common knowledge. This makes your whole video look like stupid propaganda to ANY half-awake Brit watching who'll instinctively think... "wait, no its not".
www.google.com/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3Fterm%3Dbugger%26amp%3Dtrue
@@Sci-FiOdyssey I don't care. They're wrong.
Incidentally. How fucking arrogant do you have to be, to tell someone what their own slang and their own culture is. Are you seriously going to try to correct me (incorrectly) on my own fucking slang. REALLY!
You know I’m British right?
www.google.com/amp/s/dictionary.cambridge.org/amp/english/bugger
Also. You can quote as many dictionaries as you like. THEY ARE ALL WRONG! This isn't a debate. I'm right, end of.
Both right! Mark's reasoning could be far-fetched, but it
is sound though based in generalities.
TC's personal linguistic reality cannot be denied or debunked because in Linguistics, Usage trumps Rules !
Languages can be broken into varying dialects or even IDIOLECTS (think idiosyncrasy) spoken by sometimes very small groups.
TC knows this instinctively: his linguistic reality cannot be denied. But might not be as widespread as he thinks.
You're both right, and no I'm not British. I've read an enormous amount of book including many sea novels where a bunghole is not necessarily found on a cask..
Cheers!
Ender's game is a distopic book: is not supposed to describe an ideal society. All these criticism is nonsene if you look at the book with that perspective.
My only problem with the book was the plot twist. It was incredibly stupid, made no sense at all and justified nothing.
Very interesting vid.....I saw the film years ago & totally missed the controversy.......But that thing of removing an artist from the work...Wagner's music I find really moving but it has a long "political" shadow cast over it that has like an acid burned so deep into it evoking visions in the mind that can't be un done...
The author's politics makes me like the books even more
It’s completely fair and right for you to express your opinions of Card and his work, just as it’s fair and right for Card to exercise the exact same freedoms that you exercise. And I disagree with your conclusions. For example, I believe that Card was demonstrating how awful war is and how awful such extreme measures are to win a war, yet demonstrates how miscommunications and lack of communication can lead to escalations of conflicts. But I do agree with the concept that if it’s us or them (meaning our survival is completely dependent upon destroying the enemy, such as the NAZIs and the imperial Japanese during World War II) that we not only have the right, but rather we have the obligation to do whatever it takes to win the war. Furthermore, when it comes to war, there are always problems, mistakes, failures and regrets in the end. War is such a disaster and destruction of so much that is important in life.
Honestly reading this book without knowing any background on the author, you would have no idea he held bigoted beliefs. His story here is a much more nuanced take on war and violence than many other books in the genre. Starship troopers is much more pro military and heinlein is praised endlessly.
The fact that his work is so nuanced ought to suggest that he is too. He's not a bigot, he's based.
A lot of the criticism leveled at enders game is very confusing because the book does literally the same thing. The beginning of the chapters centers on the adults of battle and command school debating on the merits of what they are doing. Its literally a central theme of the book of it being a brutal and terrible thing. The end of the book and doesnt revel in the "victory" ender is isolated from it there is a clear detactment that denies the reader feeling all is well.
I dont agree with a lot of Cards personal beliefs but anyone who claims the book glorifies the military literally didnt read or understand the book, Graff is literally the antagonist. The idea that the adults of battle school are the heroes is laughable. The idea that the book condones what happened with the children is asinine.
Ender's Game removed because it's pornographic but many want to have actual pornographic material under the banner of "inclusion and acceptance" is ok. If people think that this was pro Militarism then they probably haven't ever 1. read the book or looked at the concept of difficult decision.
Ender in the end was wrong he simply committed true war and it doesn't matter how ender won just that he won you should always be ready to commit genocide when ever you go to war and that is why true war should always be avoided but if it can't be the only thing that matters is who in the end wins.
Looking for a movie that similar to Ender game that came out in 1990. This was before author made his changes in to his book in 1991.
American's views about what is adequate or inadequate for children is laughingstock worldwide.
Also, it seems every criticism coming from American parents/teachers is tone blind, they can't discern depiction from support/apology.