Shadow of the Hegemon

Reader Aaron Gifford contributed this review of Shadow of the Hegemon, by the prolific Orson Scott Card. (What? An author with the "ability to make smart characters actually act and behave intelligently"? The sky is falling!) Given the movie plans in the works from Card, it's great to see the bookshelf expand with possible sequel material, too.

Shadow of the Hegemon author Orson Scott Card pages 365 publisher TOR rating 8 reviewer Aaron Gifford ISBN 0-312-87651 summary Betrayal and murder litter the path to power as the child geniuses who helped Ender defend Earth return home to be kidnapped as a new struggle begins.

It's out, the new Orson Scott Card book, Shadow of the Hegemon. I don't want to give away any more of the plot than is already apparent in the summary above, so let me tell you about the book indirectly, about my own reactions, what I liked about it.

First of all, I must admit it. I'm a Card fan. I was introduced to his work like many other Slashdot readers as a teenager when I read Ender's Game. The intensity of that story and the believable brilliance of the main characters hooked me from the start. The sequels, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind continue Ender's story, but are substantially different in style and tone from the first. Card's more recent bold experiment, Ender's Shadow returns to the events in Ender's Game and retells them in parallel through the eyes of a different character, Bean. That book recaptures some of the essence and style of Ender's Game while making the story into something completely new and original.

Shadow of the Hegemon charts new territory as a sequel to Ender's Shadow telling the stories of the aftermath of the Formics War. This is not a parallel book like its predecessor. It takes place during those years mentioned only briefly in Ender's Game as Ender travels through space on the colony ship. Ender plays no part in this book.

The book definitely has action, and I love it! While Card often writes so much about the inner thought processes of his characters that sometimes his stories can slow down, there's enough action and adventure and a fast enough pace to make this book a really fun read. I might characterize it as a cross between the slower moving intellectual style in the later Ender series books and the fast paced intensity in Ender's Game. It's a blend that works.

Among the many things I enjoyed in this book is Card's excellent development of Bean's human emotional self. While Bean is intellectually brilliant, as the book opens, he seems to go through the motions of human emotional interaction without truly having felt the emotion. Card seems to have captured the shortcoming that children who suffer deprivation of human contact early in life sometimes exhibit, and included it in the character of Bean. As the story progresses, Bean slowly develops genuine emotional ties with other human beings and the emotional side of his character matures considerably.

Like any work of fiction, there must be a suspension of disbelief. The character Achilles, Bean's enemy from his earlier years growing up in Rotterdam and again at Battle School, returns as a highly connected villain worthy of any James Bond movie. In Ender's Shadow Bean exposes him as the psychopathic murderer he is. Achilles, also a genius, has escaped from an institute for the criminally insane to wreak havoc on the world in general, and on Bean and his personal enemies in particular, as he ensconces himself in positions of power. In several places, Achilles seems to have a nearly omniscient ability to monitor the actions and whereabouts of his personal enemies, stretching my suspension of disbelief a bit thin as I read.

I truly enjoyed Card's character work in this book. I appreciate his willingness to create characters with backgrounds from many different cultures and locations. Card conscientiously takes the time to study and learn enough about other cultures and peoples. As a result, his characters have a depth and background beyond those in many novels.

Card creates characters with religious beliefs that are real to those characters who hold them. Even those characters who are atheist or agnostic in their own beliefs hold tightly to those beliefs every bit as tenaciously and religiously as do those characters who espouse a particular recognizable. Card always seems to treat religion with the respect others often neglect. His characters in this book, in particular Sister Carlotta, Ender's mother, and several characters from India and Pakistan, through their words and interactions, show how their own profound religious beliefs make up their core and affect their choices.

Another Card talent exhibited in this book, if not as strongly as it did in Ender's Game, is Card's ability to make smart characters actually act and behave intelligently. So many authors resort to devices that seem to say, "This character is smart because I'm telling you so," without any supporting evidence other than the author's word, or perhaps on the word of the author's supporting characters who may say in agreement, "Yes, that character is smart."

Card does sometimes tell the reader that his characters are smart, but he always backs it up with intelligent decisions, thought processes, and actions that make it believable. He's not perfect, but he is definitely among the top talents.

I was delighted and amused whenever I noticed one of the characters speaking or thinking and idea that I recognized as one of Card's own opinions or ideas. If you have read much of Card's work and are familiar with his own opinions as often expressed his non fiction and on his various Web sites (you can see some examples Card's political commentary at www.ornery.com) you too will catch his characters presenting some of those same ideas.

With so many intellectually gifted characters playing on the stage, sometimes they begin to sound a bit like each other. It's almost unavoidable for any author who writes as prolifically as Card to keep each character unique, fresh, and new. Card is one of the best at avoiding this problem, but it does crop up here and there.

When you finish the story, read the Afterword. Card's inclusion of a few words of commentary about the story writing process, how the book came to be, and about the decisions he had to make as he wrote it is fascinating. If you like Card, you will like this book. If you like action and international power plays, you will like this book. If you appreciate good writing and character development, you will like this book.

If you haven't yet read Ender's Shadow, I suggest you read it before you read this book. Like most of Card's work, this book can stand on its own, but it works better as a sequel since the book expects you to be familiar with the several main characters and their backgrounds.

You can purchase this book at ThinkGeek.

Comments

Poor review

[Metal Machine Music]

Sorry, but that is badly written.

'Characters with religious views that are real to those who hold them?'

Isn't that a tautology?

'Like any work of fiction, there must be a suspension of disbelief'

This reads like someone reviewing a book for a grade school essay. Sorry. You don't need to say that.

This reminds of a restaurant review I read by someone (another lay person) recently who reviewed the McDonalds he went into as if it was a 5* restaurant, commenting on the quality of the fries.

You can't analyze trashy novels as if they were real literature. They're great for reading on the beach or whatever - but analysis? Never.

I'm not trying to be negative here, but if you're going to review something, you should be a little more critical of it. Try reading a book on literary criticism. There's quite an art to it, and I think you might find you have a genuine interest in it.

Re:Poor review

[webwolf2k]

I can't comment on the quality of the review, since I don't think any reviewer ever captures the essence of what the author was trying to say. In response to your intimation that Card's books fall under the "trashy novel" genre, I must protest. Ender's Game was, and still is a big factor in shaping my life and how I live it. As many other /. users I was an outsider and lived vicariously through Ender.

Re:Poor review

[barawn]

Starting off an English criticism with a vague pronoun. Bad start. "That" is badly written? What is "that"? If you're referring to the review, it should be 'this', not 'that'.

But, in any case, to criticize your criticism of a critique (okay, properly a review- more on this later):

"Characters with religious views that are real to those who hold them" is not a tautology - it is not self evident that an author would present characters with consistent, believable religious views - it is completely common in novels for a person to appear to have a certain opinion one moment, and then a completely different one the next.

The 'suspension of disbelief' statement was unneeded, but it seems to be a buzzword when denoting a weak point in a novel that isn't that important. He's right on this case - this portion of the novel was weak, but it was not devastating to the novel. Card has never portrayed Achilles as a believable villain - the section in Ender's Shadow from Achilles's point of view is weak at best. Therefore, it's understandable that he avoided going into the specifics of how Achilles rose to power - the only real way to do that would be to tell it from Achilles's point of view. Instead, he came up with a rather creative solution, which was to use a secondary character critical of the villain. This way he didn't have to write from a point of view supportin Achilles, which he has trouble doing, and could still explain most of Achilles's actions. It was weak - it did require a bit of acceptance, rather than justification, but it at least was internally consistent.

Finally, the crack about Card being a 'trashy novel' author is not only unnecessary - it's flat out wrong. "Ender's Game" is commonly viewed as the best example of the 'unlikely hero/child hero' scenario in science fiction.

As to the other comment about being critical of the book, that is for a critique, not a review. A review is a reader's impression of the novel - if the reader enjoys the novel, the review is likely to be positive. If the reader dislikes the novel, the review is likely to be negative. Go fig. Don't criticize a review for not being a critique - it never pretended to be one.

Book review... sample chapters of the book

[StJohnsWort]

Dont have to preach to the choir, I've been a fan for years of his works. For those of you who arent familiar with his writings, here is a link to the first few chapters of the book to enjoy. http://www.hatrack.com/osc/books/hegemon01.shtml

The sky isn't really falling you know

[rw2]

I like Card as much as the next guy, but to laud him as some great author is kind of over stating it.

He churns out the same book over and over. Does this sound familar. The protagonist is a kid, more often than not with trouble in his life, but sometimes raised by a fine family who doesn't quite understand him. This kids runs into trouble, ranging from aliens to ghosts to the government, but always he is a pawn and doesn't understand what is going on around him. On page 275 he discovers the Matrix, er, I mean the omnipresent controlling influence in his life. By the end of the book he has defeated evil, or is dead but has still been victorious over the evil that he had to give his life to defeat.

That should sound familiar to everyone who has read his books not only because they are almost all like that (though Redemption was a little bit of a break and a nice historical piece) and is probably pretty close to the life story of the average /. reader.

Lot's of the denizens of /. grew up as outsiders, without control of their lives. Discovered the key to the world at some point (the ability to think) and now are critical to the daily operation of society.

--

Re:The sky isn't really falling you know

[Capt Dan]

Whether or not I agree with your opinion of card, I must disagree with your reasoning.

The merit of an author is should not be based on the overall themes that may connect his/her books, but on how they tell the story. Who are the characters? Can you relate to them? What happens to them? How are they affected/changed by their experiences? Is their world realistic and believable?

By your reasoning, Ender's Game and Memory of Earth should be exactly the same book, while in reality they are very very different. The characters are different, the setting is different, and the events are different.

The themes you describe apply to a majority of the stories written as well. Take the script for Armageddon for instance. Characters with trouble in their lives? Check. Run into trouble (asteroid, planetary death)? Check. Omnipresent controlling influence? Check. Defeated evil by the end of the book, or is dead but has still been victorious? Double Check.

Card may not author great literay works like Dickens or Flaubert, but he is a great storyteller. And in my book that's the better of the two.

Card consistently manages to write good novels, something that eludes way to many popular authors now adays.


Sig:

Re:The sky isn't really falling you know

[0xdeadbeef]

Indeed. I'm sick of all the repetition in works of fiction. They always have a "plot", with this thing called a "conflict" which exists between "protagonists" and "antagonists". And there is always some "theme" being preached at you by the author, like I give a damn. A random string of words beats this kind of doggerel anyday.

--
Bush's assertion: there ought to be limits to freedom

Re:The sky isn't really falling you know

[rw2]

Maybe you should try reading some of his suspense novels, such as Treasure Box . Scared the willies out of me.


Been there.

It's the same old song. Unhappy kid, as an adult in this case but built up to have child like emotions, runs into trouble (which I won't spoil) without even realizing it, manages to figure out what's going on, defeats the trouble and lives sort of happily ever after.

Having said that, let me remind folks what the first sentence in my post said. I like Card. I liked Treasure Box, for that matter. I took it on a weekend get away with the kids and knocked it off in eight hours or so while they swam in the pool. With my attention span, that's saying something! (BTW, check out Redemption, it's my current favorite due to his always quality story telling, but with a departure from the same old themes.)

What I was taking exception too was the idea that Card is somehow intelligent or deep. His stuff is very much soap opera sci-fi. And that's fine. He tells a great story. But he really is more similar to ER with it's moderately clever but too often repetative plot twists than Gone With The Wind which stands alone as a classic.

--

Re:The sky isn't really falling you know

[SIWaters]

A colleague and friend of mine who authored role-playing games in the late '80s told me that there are only two story lines: 1) A stranger comes to town, and 2) You go on a trip. While simplistic, there is an element of truth in this.

More academically, the dramatic theorist Georges Polti posited that there are only 36 Dramatic Situations, and all of literature and drama can be decomposed in a combination of these. The book is out of print, but here's a link to Amazon to find out more if you're interested. A Google search turns up some interesting sources, for those who want to know more.

Re:The sky isn't really falling you know

[Moofie]

Bah! Everybody knows there's only one story in RPG's. "Kill Foozle." Foozle is defined as that which needs to be killed. Foozle need not be Named at the beginning of the adventure, but it ain't over 'till Foozle is dead. Embellish as necessary.

Have you ever written anything?

[Hairy_Potter]

I'm the AC that wrote the prior post, and I'm wondering if you ever wrote anything? If you did, you would have known that you had to pick a title, titles don't come flying out of the sky.

Why did OSC pick Shadow of the Hegemon? Why is he associating shadow with an evil, dangerous force?

Why not Spectre of the Hegemon or some other title without loaded racial connotations?

Re:Disturbing subtext

[aitala]

um, he named the character Achilles because he had a limp in the first book.. actually the other street kids named him that as a joke... makes sense to me

Re:Disturbing subtext

[paitre]

Shoeboy:
First, Grow up.
Second, generalizations make people look like assholes and idiots. And we all know what assuming does, right?
_NOT_ all LDS are homophobic, and I'd wager that it's a far smaller number than either of us could gestimate. Yes, the LDS Church teachs that homosexuality is a sin. So do the Baptists. So do the Catholics.
If you're ready to call about a Billion people homophobes, feel free. Feel free to be wrong, and looked at as an intellectual lightweight by those who matter.

Learn something about a group before you start bashing it, and -not- just from biased sources that are against a given group. Only through the dissemination of pro, anti and neutral opinions can one can any sort of an understanding about something as truly subjective as religion.

Re:Disturbing subtext

[maroberts]

Actually, Achilles is not truly a hero in all senses of the term; like most characters in the Iliad and Oddessey he had his flaws, for example he treated Hectors body dishonourably by not returning it after single combat and dragging it round Troy. [which pissed off the gods and indirectly lead to Achilles death IIRC]

There are other sci-fi books where Achilles gets a mention, including a little known one by Roderick Macleish called "Prince Ombra", where Achilles is mentioned in passing as a bad guy.

In short, OSC had to call the bad guy something, why not Achilles ?

AFAIK, little if any mention is made of homosexuality in any of OSCs Ender series of books, so why you decided to go on this rant is quite beyond me.

I know little of Mormonism, but I see little in the Ender series of books that pushes a sigle religious philosophy. "Children of the Gods" explores Chinese beliefs, Xenocide and its predecessor explore Catholicism, and many other beliefs are included in passing.

Shadow, like "Free," has Multiple Meanings

[Christopher B. Brown]

Certainly a common intent of "shadow" is that of something dark and malevolent, and the association of "darkness" with colour resonates with the American experience with race relations. There is probably some usage of the word "shadow" in the American South that is explicitly racist, and those of us that are not "literarily intimate" with the American South don't even perceive that to be a relevant intent.

I don't think that came out of anything racial; the reason for the malevolence is that people prefer to hide what is evil, and a good way of doing that is to keep it in darkness, rather than keeping it "well-lit." In that context, the word "shadow" is immensely appropriate.

Neither of those contexts appear terribly relevant to either of Card's "Shadow" books; the other meaning of "shadow" comes in that the shadow is some sort of pale imitation, an "inverse reflection" from something real, that lurks near that "real thing." That set of characteristics apply quite well to Bean in these books. He "lurks" near the Wiggins brothers, and is something of an "imitation" of them.

Re:Use of Shadow

[Capt Dan]

I havn't read Shadow of the Hegemon yet, but in Ender's Shadow, the title was meant to indicate Bean's existance as a shadow of Ender, always seen as less important than Ender was.

Good point. And in Shadow of the Hegemon bean is secondary to the Hegemon.

From the book review on Amazon.com:
"...just as [Bean] played second to Ender during the Bugger war, Bean must again step into the shadow of another, the one who will be Hegemon. "


Sig:

OSC is a very uneven writer...

[Remus Shepherd]

I gave up on Orson Scott Card's Ender series after Xenocide. The first two books were terrific...but that book was mostly awful. Card painted himself in a corner, and could only resolve the book by having the protagonists discover a magic spaceship that made wishes come true. (Yes, really!)

Now to escape that corner he's painted his universe into, Card is going back and rehashing the old stories from new points of view. I'm sure they're adequately written novels (meaning I'm sure he's learned a lesson from Xenocide). But I just don't have any interest in reading them.

I'd much rather see Card start a NEW universe...he's sucked all the fun out of this one.

Read Ender's Game first!

[soboroff]

"If you haven't yet read Ender's Shadow, I suggest you read it before you read this book. Like most of Card's work, this book can stand on its own, but it works better as a sequel since the book expects you to be familiar with the several main characters and their backgrounds. "

This is definitely true, and I liked "Ender's Shadow", but I definitely wouldn't hand it to someone who hadn't read Ender's Game. EG was really powerfully written; ES feels much more like a documentary.

Re:The movies

[A Big Gnu Thrush]

nobody in Hollywood wants to touch this project

Even more importantly, there is no project. Card has a successful book and a screenplay. Woohoo! All he needs now is studio backing. Gosh, how hard could that be? After all, Jake Lloyd(!) has expressed an interest, studio money should be right on the heels of that!

The reality is that as much as people love this book, and as fun as it might be to see this movie, Card is no closer to seeing this on film than he was 20 (or 30) years ago.

Re:Disturbing subtext

[John_Prophet]

Yes, the LDS Church teachs that homosexuality is a sin. So do the Baptists. So do the Catholics.

Unfortunately for your argument (which is sound, and true) it is reasonably common knowledge that Card has a big problem with homosexuality... you can read about it in just about any of the articles he's written over time.

Here's one:

The Hypocrites of Homosexuality - By Orson Scott Card

It doesn't take a nuclear physicist (or even a Linux Enthusiast :D) to read the blatent and hidden undertones in the above article. Given this new knowledge, do you think that it is at all possible -- consciously or unconsciously -- that Card did just such a thing (purposely make references between homosexuality and evil) as the original poster suggests?


-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)

Re:Disturbing subtext

[namespan]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact the Shoeboy consistently seems to name his villian "Card".
Most would consider Card to be hero, or at the very least interesting, but not Shoeboy.
Shoeboy is Card hater, and like all Card haters, is homophobicphobic.
As anyone who's read Card knows, he doesn't hate homosexual individuals, but doesn't believe that homosexuality is right and doesn't have a problem telling people that.
Apparently, in Shoeboy's eyes, this makes him a villain.

Mormons worry me.

Shoeboy worries me. :)

(or might just have just taken up the slashdot hobby of posting just the right inflammatory but not quite flamebait comment, much like KTB)

--

Re:Must we celebrate this racist homophobe?

[barawn]

I don't know where to start.

'Shadow' doesn't necessarily have negative connotations - 'to stand in someone's shadow' does not mean that you are evil somehow. That's how Card is using 'shadow', and if you've seen the cover of "Ender's Shadow", you'd know that. In the first book, he was talking about Bean, who is in Ender's shadow -hence the name. Now again, the next story is about Bean, who is now standing in Peter's shadow. Peter is the Hegemon, the leader of the nominal world government. Hence, Shadow of the Hegemon. Card isn't even implying that the Hegemony is evil.

Also, in case you missed all the other Greek names in his books - oh, I don't know, say, Ender's Shadow, which had Nikolai, Julian, etc.? Moreover, it's not out of place, as it comes from a city where children's names are doled out by kitchen aides or other children as well. The symbolic importance of Achilles is easy enough, as Achilles really acts like the historic Achilles throughout most of the books. (Note that I mean the historic Achilles, who wasn't exactly much of a hero)

Blah. I won't waste more of my time arguing with a primarily troll post - I did however just want to make sure that someone who saw this post didn't think any of it was true.

Re: Subtexts, homophobia, homophobiaphobia, etc.

[namespan]

Given this new knowledge, do you think that it is at all possible -- consciously or unconsciously -- that Card did just such a thing (purposely make references between homosexuality and evil) as the original poster suggests?

Card is not in the habit of making homosexuals villains. See Songmaster. Additionally, he has plenty of heterosexual villains (see, oh, just about anything, including the fact that Achilles seemed pretty straight in Shadw).

Also, the essay you quote shows that he's not subversive about the way he goes about expressing his beliefs about homosexuality -- he's happy to put it out front.

Finally, I think you misunderstand the essay. It's not, as a focus, a scathing rejection of anyone who is homosexual. He _does_ reject the idea that you can live a life based on your identity as a homosexual and remain part of the LDS church (which really, doesn't take being a nuclear physicist to figure out). That's where he draws his line. You can't beleive the Mormon Church is what it says it is and be what it asks its members to be if your allegiance to your sexual tendancies is higher than your allegience to the Church.


--

Re:OSC and Morality

[localroger]

like he is trying to make the heathens find god or something, and that's not his job.

As a matter of fact, as a devout Mormon he considers that his primary job. I explained in the Card Movie discussion last week about my friend who wrote the Ender and Hitler article; I remember one thing that blew Radford away was that she told Card "we all know what the road to Hell is paved with" and he replied, "I don't believe that."

He's not just trying to teach morality, he is trying to teach a morality most of us would find somewhat reprehensible if he stated it baldly.

P.S. I mentioned that discussion to her recently and she is toying with the idea of putting the article online. Unfortunately she does not have it in digital form and will have to find a hard copy to scan. Also, I think it's less than complete without Card's incredibly lame rebuttal which she can't publish without his permission (which she ain't likely to either ask for or get).

It is, however, available at the library in Literary Review where it was republished. Search for Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman by Mary Elaine Radford.

Re:Disturbing subtext

[namespan]

sit there and talk about how tolerance in the church will destroy it. Isn't that what it's built around?

It depends on what you're tolerating.

If by tolerance you mean treating other human beings with kindness and integrity in your dealings with them, the church is definitely built around that.

If by tolerance you mean blessing any behavior or attitude, the Mormon church (or any spiritual discipline, really) is NOT about that. If it were,
what would be the point?

The point of a spiritual discipline is to achieve a transformation to a desired state, usually by controlling ones behavior, thoughts, actions, desires, habits. Churches are based on this premise. Christianity is, with the added idea that you can't really do it all by yourself, you need the help of a higher power (Christ), as well as the example. Mormonism tracks this pretty closely.

Some of the oft-included behaviors/desires for various spiritual disciplines are those associated with sexual behavior/desire. For mormons, that discipline includes no sexual relations except between a man and woman married to each other. The homosexual community seems to persist in calling for the church to abandon teaching this discipline.

Since that discipline (and those related) ARE
the point of the church, to eliminate it is to
essentially destroy the purpose of the church.


--

Re:Disturbing subtext

[John_Prophet]

Since that discipline (and those related) ARE
the point of the church, to eliminate it is to
essentially destroy the purpose of the church.

So do you believe that it would (for instance) be destructive to the Catholic Church if they decided to change the fundamental policy of disallowing women to be ordained?


-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)

Re:Disturbing subtext

[namespan]

o do you believe that it would (for instance) be destructive to the Catholic Church if they decided to change the fundamental policy of disallowing women to be ordained?

Not being a big part of the Catholic Community or even haven known more than one or two practicing catholics, I'm afraid I can't say for certain.

However, I do know that if a community claims that its heirarchy leads by divine guidance, and then allows a popular vote among members of the community to change things w/o reference to afforementioned guidance, it destroys that principle of the community, and possibly the
community with it.

They _could_ change it if they claimed they had received direction from God to do so. This would preserve the claims of guidance from God, and affect the change, w/o damage to the community.

There may also be a spiritual argument for not ordaining women w/in their church. I don't know.



--

Generalizations (In General)

[fm6]

...generalizations make people look like assholes and idiots.

Uhm. I shouldn't do this, but, uhm.... You do realize that's a generalization?

__________________