I thought it was about empathy and humanity. Kids are abused into committing what would be considered war crimes if they were against other humans. At the end, if I recall, Ender finds and saves the last queen of the species and feels a profound empathetic connection.
The dynamic between his brother and sister, a sociopath and an empath, indicate the balance between both being a major theme.
doesn’t help that orson scott card is still a raging homophobe. brandon sanderson is also a mormon, but (it looks like) he was able to grow the fuck up and stop being a bigot
I don’t think this is fair. Even the concept of society labeling “thirds” is portrayed as something disturbing.
And the sociopath brother becomes the hegemon of the planet earth if I recall correctly, and this also is not a good thing, but more seen as a dystopia reality. The military isn’t seen as good, but manipulative.
Are the children bred as soldiers or to be leaders in society ever portrayed as good? it reads as tragic.
Is Hitler the queen of the hive in your eyes or Peter? Because Peter definitely isn’t seen as positive and the hive is a different form of existence that eventually leads to the message that different species despite all origins or existence in a hypothetical can eventually come to coexist if mutual understanding is somehow found.
(I’m queer and Card is a bigot who can eat it, but I don’t think any of it really shows in his writing.)
Is Hitler the queen of the hive in your eyes or Peter?
The question is whether you can commit genocide/xenocide and still be forgiven, and it’s a theme that the series touches on over and over. The most famous genocide today is the Holocaust, so critics of Card phrase it as whether you can forgive Hitler.
I’m sure that Card has spoken specifically about this subject (whether he thinks people should forgive Hitler), as well, and while I think I remember what he said, I’m not so sure that I would simply say it.
But he’s got a history of making some provocative statements about his beliefs.
Like, he has said that an important part of his books is to spread Mormon beliefs. I remember, after reading the Ender series, I read The Worthing Saga, and midway through, felt it necessary to go look up which religion he belonged to, just because he made it so obvious that he was criticizing Christian religions. (If I remember correctly, I didn’t have to look hard to find his religion, because it was in his biography on the book jacket.)
Enid Blyton. Lovely concepts, but there was a bit of racism that crept in, just from the time that it was written. Even if a lot of it was largely relegated to stereotypes.
Oh this one is really something. Even as a clueless teen I still had WTF moments, and I don’t even want to read it now, I just know I will be cringing the whole time.
If I had read that series a few years earlier I probably would have liked it. It felt like the author just hated women, and I was just old enough to go “What the hell?”
Edit: It’s been a while, can’t remember if this is the one I’m thinking of or if I read a similar series at the same time.
No, I think you’re thinking of the correct one. There’s a lot of weird sexual hangups about women in there that seem odd as a teen, and disqualifyingly gross as an adult.
I remember trying this series out in my teens, having already gone trough quite a few, and I remember it being the first book I just dropped under a half trough, but I couldn’t remember why until know. I just remembered it as shallow and depressing to read.
Didn’t read it as a teenager, but had I done so I’m pretty sure that Nineteen Eighty-Four would’ve fallen into that category. The protag is insufferable and sexist as hell. Never even bothered finishing that one. After the 2nd or third clandestine meeting to fuck the manic pixie dream nympho I was struggling to care anymore.
He doesn’t have to be a good person, that’s fair. I just found myself not giving a shit. He lives in a dystopian authoritarian truthless hellscape, and all he cares about is the thrill of getting his dick wet under the Party’s nose. His concerns are so small and hedonistic, I just couldn’t care less. The backdrop of the world was far more interesting, but the book goes out of its was to not actually dig into all of that too much once the scene is set early on.
I’ve come to understand that, had I carried on reading, there is some payoff where the nympho turns out to be a honeypot or something? Or both of them are being monitored and get arrested by the regime? Or whatever? That would have made it like 10 percent more interesting I guess, but it just dragged on in his misplaced priorities for far too long to keep me going. A book should not be an exercise in endurance, in my opinion.
I found it enagaging and tense, and didn’t see her as a nymphomaniac at all.
Sex represented the humanity, love, and creativity that was being quashed by the authoritarian government, and their resistance to it being as innate as the need to fuck. This is indicated by the fact that “Love” was literally a banned word. Every time they got together was a dangerous act of rebellion.
Sex represented the humanity, love, and creativity that was being quashed by the authoritarian government,
Yeah, see, that’s not how the protag’s mindset read to me. He seems almost entirely complacent about the other aspects of his and everyone else’s oppression. He even scoffs at the rumors of rebellions and mocks those who would try. The one thing he cares about is his lack of sex.
He very much read as a sexually frustrated incel type from the very beginning, lamenting that he couldn’t just sleep with whomever he wanted, not for love, but for passion and lust. Hell, doesn’t he have a rape and murder fantasy over some woman (Is it the girl he ends up sleeping with? I cant recall). Like, he’s absolutely a piece of shit. But, grain of salt, maybe I’m remembering that wrong. I cant recall a ton of details. So, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Again, passion and lust are fine. I just couldn’t give a shit about your lust when the world is a machine of lies and control. It’s far too petty a concern. Their rebellion was far too self-centered, personal and base to be compelling to me. They are entirely apathetic to Big Brother’s control over everything, even one’s own thoughts, except where it affects themselves and what they personally care about. They will sneak around to sleep together, consume smuggled luxuries, but then do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone else around them. I just dont care about people like that or want to put myself in their minds. I find it distasteful.
He seems almost entirely complacent about the other aspects of his and everyone else’s oppression. He even scoffs at the rumors of rebellions and mocks those who would try. The one thing he cares about is his lack of sex.
gestures wildly around at america
I think that’s the most humanizing and realistic part of the writing, honestly.
Again, fair enough. But I have no interest in reading about the sexual escapades and inner monologue of a common selfish prick, no matter how prevalent they are IRL. If you wrote a book about a Nazi soldier just trying to throw a nice Arian themed dinner party but struggling to get good Swiss cream butter for his strudels because the Allies have halted supply lines, that might be relatable on a human level too, but I dont care to read about it.
The main character opposes indoctrination in multiple ways - his love affair is contrasted with his hatred of the party. At one point he tries to join a rebellion (only to find his contact was actually a government spy,) and he keeps a diary of his thoughts when writing and having those thoughts is criminal. It’s an outlet due to the emotional repression enforced by Big Brother.
It’s supposed to make us question our opinions on censorship and crime by challenging us. Do we think anything Winston did should be illegal? Where do we draw the line on acceptable expression?
Hell, Big Brother is as much an omnipresent main character as Winston, and it’s not likeable either
If you didn’t enjoy the book, that’s valid, but I don’t think you’re seeing the forest for the trees, taking the relationship and the characters a little too literally.
Sympathizing with people you would normally never think or care about is part of why reading is such a valuable excercise.
they left out “i loved this book when i read it as a teenager, and only noticed the nationalism/sexism/racism when i grew up”
for me: alas, babylon
When I was a teenager, the Ender’s Game series was about exceptionally smart children. As an adult, it’s about eugenics and forgiving Hitler.
I thought it was about empathy and humanity. Kids are abused into committing what would be considered war crimes if they were against other humans. At the end, if I recall, Ender finds and saves the last queen of the species and feels a profound empathetic connection.
The dynamic between his brother and sister, a sociopath and an empath, indicate the balance between both being a major theme.
another book i loved when i was stupid(er).
doesn’t help that orson scott card is still a raging homophobe. brandon sanderson is also a mormon, but (it looks like) he was able to grow the fuck up and stop being a bigot
I don’t think this is fair. Even the concept of society labeling “thirds” is portrayed as something disturbing.
And the sociopath brother becomes the hegemon of the planet earth if I recall correctly, and this also is not a good thing, but more seen as a dystopia reality. The military isn’t seen as good, but manipulative.
Are the children bred as soldiers or to be leaders in society ever portrayed as good? it reads as tragic.
Is Hitler the queen of the hive in your eyes or Peter? Because Peter definitely isn’t seen as positive and the hive is a different form of existence that eventually leads to the message that different species despite all origins or existence in a hypothetical can eventually come to coexist if mutual understanding is somehow found.
(I’m queer and Card is a bigot who can eat it, but I don’t think any of it really shows in his writing.)
The question is whether you can commit genocide/xenocide and still be forgiven, and it’s a theme that the series touches on over and over. The most famous genocide today is the Holocaust, so critics of Card phrase it as whether you can forgive Hitler.
I’m sure that Card has spoken specifically about this subject (whether he thinks people should forgive Hitler), as well, and while I think I remember what he said, I’m not so sure that I would simply say it.
But he’s got a history of making some provocative statements about his beliefs.
Like, he has said that an important part of his books is to spread Mormon beliefs. I remember, after reading the Ender series, I read The Worthing Saga, and midway through, felt it necessary to go look up which religion he belonged to, just because he made it so obvious that he was criticizing Christian religions. (If I remember correctly, I didn’t have to look hard to find his religion, because it was in his biography on the book jacket.)
Oh. Oh that’s makes sense thinking back on it.
Enid Blyton. Lovely concepts, but there was a bit of racism that crept in, just from the time that it was written. Even if a lot of it was largely relegated to stereotypes.
Sword of Truth series for me.
Oh this one is really something. Even as a clueless teen I still had WTF moments, and I don’t even want to read it now, I just know I will be cringing the whole time.
If I had read that series a few years earlier I probably would have liked it. It felt like the author just hated women, and I was just old enough to go “What the hell?”
Edit: It’s been a while, can’t remember if this is the one I’m thinking of or if I read a similar series at the same time.
No, I think you’re thinking of the correct one. There’s a lot of weird sexual hangups about women in there that seem odd as a teen, and disqualifyingly gross as an adult.
I remember trying this series out in my teens, having already gone trough quite a few, and I remember it being the first book I just dropped under a half trough, but I couldn’t remember why until know. I just remembered it as shallow and depressing to read.
About half way through is the weird sex torture that just comes out of nowhere. That could be why.
I don’t think I even got that far. I remember it being quite off almost immediately, I was already giving it a chance and it just did not get better.
I wish I didn’t finish it, but it was part of a book trade where a friend and I read a recommendation from each other. We don’t talk anymore.
You’re a better person for giving up.
Didn’t read it as a teenager, but had I done so I’m pretty sure that Nineteen Eighty-Four would’ve fallen into that category. The protag is insufferable and sexist as hell. Never even bothered finishing that one. After the 2nd or third clandestine meeting to fuck the manic pixie dream nympho I was struggling to care anymore.
The characters, including the main one, are more archetypal. None are supposed to be good people.
He doesn’t have to be a good person, that’s fair. I just found myself not giving a shit. He lives in a dystopian authoritarian truthless hellscape, and all he cares about is the thrill of getting his dick wet under the Party’s nose. His concerns are so small and hedonistic, I just couldn’t care less. The backdrop of the world was far more interesting, but the book goes out of its was to not actually dig into all of that too much once the scene is set early on.
I’ve come to understand that, had I carried on reading, there is some payoff where the nympho turns out to be a honeypot or something? Or both of them are being monitored and get arrested by the regime? Or whatever? That would have made it like 10 percent more interesting I guess, but it just dragged on in his misplaced priorities for far too long to keep me going. A book should not be an exercise in endurance, in my opinion.
I found it enagaging and tense, and didn’t see her as a nymphomaniac at all.
Sex represented the humanity, love, and creativity that was being quashed by the authoritarian government, and their resistance to it being as innate as the need to fuck. This is indicated by the fact that “Love” was literally a banned word. Every time they got together was a dangerous act of rebellion.
Yeah, see, that’s not how the protag’s mindset read to me. He seems almost entirely complacent about the other aspects of his and everyone else’s oppression. He even scoffs at the rumors of rebellions and mocks those who would try. The one thing he cares about is his lack of sex.
He very much read as a sexually frustrated incel type from the very beginning, lamenting that he couldn’t just sleep with whomever he wanted, not for love, but for passion and lust. Hell, doesn’t he have a rape and murder fantasy over some woman (Is it the girl he ends up sleeping with? I cant recall). Like, he’s absolutely a piece of shit. But, grain of salt, maybe I’m remembering that wrong. I cant recall a ton of details. So, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Again, passion and lust are fine. I just couldn’t give a shit about your lust when the world is a machine of lies and control. It’s far too petty a concern. Their rebellion was far too self-centered, personal and base to be compelling to me. They are entirely apathetic to Big Brother’s control over everything, even one’s own thoughts, except where it affects themselves and what they personally care about. They will sneak around to sleep together, consume smuggled luxuries, but then do absolutely nothing to benefit anyone else around them. I just dont care about people like that or want to put myself in their minds. I find it distasteful.
gestures wildly around at america
I think that’s the most humanizing and realistic part of the writing, honestly.
Again, fair enough. But I have no interest in reading about the sexual escapades and inner monologue of a common selfish prick, no matter how prevalent they are IRL. If you wrote a book about a Nazi soldier just trying to throw a nice Arian themed dinner party but struggling to get good Swiss cream butter for his strudels because the Allies have halted supply lines, that might be relatable on a human level too, but I dont care to read about it.
IDK dude, I don’t remember the sex thing being as played up as you’re making it seem. Might be time for a re-read
The main character opposes indoctrination in multiple ways - his love affair is contrasted with his hatred of the party. At one point he tries to join a rebellion (only to find his contact was actually a government spy,) and he keeps a diary of his thoughts when writing and having those thoughts is criminal. It’s an outlet due to the emotional repression enforced by Big Brother.
It’s supposed to make us question our opinions on censorship and crime by challenging us. Do we think anything Winston did should be illegal? Where do we draw the line on acceptable expression?
Hell, Big Brother is as much an omnipresent main character as Winston, and it’s not likeable either
If you didn’t enjoy the book, that’s valid, but I don’t think you’re seeing the forest for the trees, taking the relationship and the characters a little too literally.
Sympathizing with people you would normally never think or care about is part of why reading is such a valuable excercise.