Orson Scott Card Reviews Everything

H_Fisher writes "Orson Scott Card, author of sci-fi classic Ender's Game and many other novels and stories, has posted his review of the much-discussed Joss Whedon film Serenity (which opened at #2 in the US box office this past weekend). Among other things, Card has this to say about Serenity: 'Those of you who know my work at all know about Ender's Game. I jealously protected the movie rights to Ender's Game so that it would not be filmed until it could be done right ... I'll tell you this right now: If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made.'" With praise for Full House, Friends, Being John Malkovich, and Lost to boot.

Comments

If you are wondering

[stoolpigeon]

like I was. Here is the count of mentions from the body.
 
Serenity: 7
Ender's Game: 6
 
So it really is more about Serenity.

Re:If you are wondering

[SpryGuy]

The good news is that it's not too late for you to see the complete FireFly series on DVD.

I saw the whole thing before seeing the movie, and yeah, there's much of the movie that I can't imagine had the same impact if you hadn't seen the series as if you had.

But since you liked the movie, you might enjoy going back and watching the entire series.

Glad he liked it.

[Trespass]

Pity he's batshit insane.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[bersl2]

Pity he's batshit insane.

Exactly what I thought, to the word.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[haplo21112]

I'll just agree to differ in Opinion. I personally respect Card as writer. I also generally respect his opinions on movies and books. I can't say I fully agree with all his political Ideals. However there are some people attribute to him that simply are not true. Ender's Game is not an apology for Hitler. Card as spoken about this time and time again, that Ender and Hitler have some parallels, Yes. However he was in way even thinking of Hitler when he wrote the book.

I also disagree with his point of view on the whole "Gay" marriage thing. My opinion differs, it doesn't however make me detest him as a person and I still read and enjoy his books. He is a Religious Family man and his views of the world stage are tinted by that fact. He beleives it is the role of our government to uphold some of his ideals. I think its the role of the governemnt to uphold some of mine too, they in someways differ form his, but it is what it is.

We even have a few incommon, for instance he believes that he has the right to rip music to MP3 just like I do.

Many people on the site do not even dig that far into the man however. They respect him as the writer of Ender's Game one of the greatest sci-fi novels ever published. They do not need or want to know anything more than that about him. And thats fine too!
The writer of Ender's Game likes Serenity...and thats good enough for them. I don't think this in anyway contributes to or shows any decay of the site.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ender's Game is not an Apologia for Hitler.

There are two major differences:
1. Ender is the "deceived" and Hitler is the "deceiver"
Unless you can make a substainal case that Hitler (or any other commiter of "genocide") was fundamentally used, manipulated, etc. I think I can ignore that both Hitler and Ender were supposedly virgins until age 37 and third children as a significant similarity.

2. Ender's actions where all logical given known information.

a. Buggers Better than Humans b. Human space unable to be defended c. destroy buggers completely

Unfortunately, the tradegy is that this logic is at no point tempered by other factors such as
morality. This can not be said of the majority of Hitler's actions. These actions where often both immoral and alogical.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[thc69]

Somehow, I don't think Hitler was under the impression that he was playing a harmless video game when he tried to exterminate my ancestors. From the wiki:

Card entered the fray and responded in the same issue of Fantasy Review, claiming that this was an attack, and that no such parallel could reasonably be drawn because Ender kills unknowingly, while this can't possibly be said about Hitler.

Ender, meanwhile, got so pissed off at the school that he decided to cheat at the "game" so they would throw him out. He was trying to get out when he committed his xenocide.

As far as Stilson and the other jerk he killed in self defense, they got justice -- even if you think their punishment was too harsh, they're definitely the guilty parties. This isn't the questionable morality found in a drunk driver's excuse for killing a bicyclist. It's not a matter of Ender's intent being used as an excuse -- even though it's the only way he can justify it to himself. The truth is that they chose to enter a battle to the death with him, fully expecting to kill him, rather than to be killed by him.

Sorry, theorize all you want, but Ender fails to be eqivelant in any way to Hitler.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[Wateshay]

Alright I'll bite. I in no way agree with everything that Card says. For one, I'm not (nor would I ever want to be) a Mormon. That said, if you're going to demonize a man, at least use what he actually said to demonize him, rather than taking a slanted reading with a side of hyperbole. I just read the reference you provided (all of it), and nowhere do I see Card advocating unchecked censorship of the media. In fact, the only thing I see him call for is consequence for the media when they publish something that they should have known was false. Do I agree? Not really. Even though it's a nice idea to hold the media accountable, I think it's too likely to be abused. Do I think that expressing the opinion that it might be a good idea (while seeming to also realize that it's untenable) makes Card into some hard-right statist who wants to control my life? Not by a long shot.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[WaterBreath]

Did you actually read the series, or just the first book???

While the (strained) comparisons between Ender and Hitler might be quasi-justifiable within the strict context of book 1, the other three Ender books go a long way in further establishing Ender's (adult) character, and in differentiating him from a genocidal sociopath like Hitler.

As much as I disagree with many of Card's religious and political views, I can't shake the feeling that the Ender/Hitler comparison is propaganda put together by people who are deeply offended and/or threatened by his religio-political stance.

And whether they are justified in that feeling or not, it reeks of an attempt at indirect social censorship. (Censorhip being, ironically, something to which the same people supposedly stand diametrically opposed.) Don't want people to hear what someone has to say? Slap a stigma on his writing, making it scary for anyone to identify with anything he says. And what better stigma than Hitler?

Bleh. Words cannot express how much I hate politics. It works exactly opposite to the scientific ideal. Decisions are not made by debating over the advantages put forth by each party of their chosen approach. Rather, they are made by debating over who has done the best job of demonizing their opponent.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[Alaska Jack]

Two thoughts:

First, OSC may have quite different political ideas than you. You may think he's a crappy writer. You may think he has bad breath.

But you (and the GP) didn't say any of those things. You said *he's insane*.

Now, think for a moment. You know how sometimes you hear about how what's wrong with America is how we demonize people who don't agree with us? About how far political discourse has fallen, because instead of talking about ideas, all we do is call each other names? About how the few voices of reason get drowned out by all the voices shrieking hate?

Well, now consider this: I bet, when you do, it never occurs to you that they're talking about *you*.

OSC's views are, as far as I can tell, well within conservative mainstream. You may *disagree* with them, but that doesn't mean they're extreme, or that he's "batshit insane." Calling them "batshit insane" doesn't say anything about OSC -- if anything, it tells us about *you*, and how seriously we should take anything you say.

Understand? I think gun control advocates, for example, are wrong and misguided. But I don't think they're "batshit insane."

My second thought, to the moderators: I just wanted to point out that you took a post that said, essentially, "Me too," and modded it INFORMATIVE. Nice.

    - Alaska Jack

Re:Glad he liked it.

[Pii]

Totally agree, and I'd like to elaborate:

Ender's Game may not be your favorite novel; in fact, you may not even like it.

The themes expressed, however, are important and compelling. Forget the strawman Hitler argument. How plain can the differences between Ender and Hitler be made? Ender committed atrocious acts with no knowledge of their effects. For Hitler, the same cannot be said...

Did you know that Ender's Game is on the Marine Corps' recommended reading list for Junior elisted personnel? At first glance, you might think it is because of the various strategic approaches that Ender is forced to employ, but that's just the surface.

The reality is that the underlying theme of the book, that intent makes makes all the difference in measuring good and evil, that an otherwise "good" person may be obligated to commit horrible deeds in the name of the greater good... That's the message that matters, because that's the position that our people in uniform have routinely found themselves in throughout our history.

Pacifism is the default posture for most people. There's not a person in the service that would prefer to be at war, rather than at peace. None of you would rather fight with someone rather than peacefully co-exist. Still, in the face of aggression, there comes a point where action must be taken, and that aggression must be checked.

The morality of intent is what allows people to do the terrible things that sometimes must be done in all of our names, and live with themselves afterward.

Re:Glad he liked it.

[LarsWestergren]

Did you know that Ender's Game is on the Marine Corps' recommended reading list for Junior elisted personnel?

I actually find that very very scary.

The reality is that the underlying theme of the book, that intent makes makes all the difference in measuring good and evil, that an otherwise "good" person may be obligated to commit horrible deeds in the name of the greater good... That's the message that matters, because that's the position that our people in uniform have routinely found themselves in throughout our history.

Uhu, and that is the VERY THING the article objects to, the message that you are good and innocent while simultanously killing. Come on, like the nazis and all other killers through history wasn't justifying what they were doing the same way. "Sure, all this stuff is distasteful, but we are doing it for the greater good...". And the book constantly paint the opponents as completely evil with no redeeming qualities and no motivations of their own, making it a very easy choice to kill them. Very convenient don't you think?

I prefer this quote from Gandhi:
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?"

reevers

[solosaint]

i like the movie, with the exception of the reevers... how did these beings operate space ships, propagate, follow a chain of command... ???

Re:reevers

[wikdwarlock]

Amen! My wife and I both thought that this was the only serious flaw in the whole movie. They mentioned that the Reevers raped women, but do the Reever traits get passed down genetically? Do they let women who they've raped live long enough to give birth? Who raises the baby Reevers? Can infants who are "beyond insanity" survive infancy? Great movie, great story, but also a serious problem w/ the Reever social structure.

Re:reevers

[Morgalyn]

Well, they are still people. Very predatory people. They used to be human. They are basically science fiction versions of, say, semi-intelligent zombies. There are some holes (I think the only holes I noticed in the whole movie, which was refreshing) dealing with the Reavers and between the tv show and the movie, primarily in generation.

I guess some people might view the following as a spoiler, and thus are forewarned.


In Firefly, an individual who was the sole survivor of a Reaver attack starts becoming a Reaver due to being driven crazy / what he has witnessed / etc. In the film, the Reavers are the way they are due to chemically induced brain changes (basically). The time period between the creation of the Reavers and the events in the film is short enough that they haven't had to deal with issues like 'how do they have babies?'.

What I don't understand is why they don't eat each other, but they're not supposed to be entirely logical, you know?

Re:reevers

[Darth]

A couple of points about this...

If i remember correctly, the reavers have only been around for about 12 years at the time of the movie and there were about 3000 of them at the start. The lack of a propagation path isnt a real problem because they havent had time to die out yet.

The answer to how they propagate is actually explained in the series, though. They sometimes choose victims on their raids and torture them and make them watch their acts and participate in their acts until their minds snap. Then they start teaching them to be reavers. They dont breed. They make more reavers out of selected captives.

Re:reevers

[Wazukkithemaster]

Well from how it was explained in the movie I think i cant take a shot at this.

The gas that was released into the atmosphere was supposed to surpress aggressive urges but was too effective. As a result all urges to do anything were suppressed (most likely because our urges to preform basic functions are driven by our darker reptilian/id/whatever part of the mind). Then one tenth of one percent of the population had an opposite reaction... They became hyper aggressive and thus all of those 'dark' (primitive) urges were magnified. Urge to reproduce, fight, indulge, etc. etc. I also suspect that the Reaver mothers would have primitive maternal instincts and would be fiercly protective of their young as most mammals are.

Thats how i see it! Hope it helps.

Re:reevers

[Tsunayoshi]

Zoe's answer when Simon asks abouts the Reavers in the series pilot:

If they take the ship, they'll rape us to death, eat our flesh and sew our skins into their clothing and if we're very very lucky, they'll do it in that order

Re:reevers

[Supurcell]

You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with 'til you understand who's in ruttin' command here.

Re:reevers

[Kelson]

This was one of the things we were trying to figure out after the movie. I went with a bunch of friends and we were discussing: "How do they recognize each other? Why do they cooperate instead of attack?"

We do know they have at least some code/traditions they follow. In the first episode of the show, Serenity comes across a Reaver ship in deep space, and they take a chance: if they run, the Reavers "will have to follow. It's their way." If they they hold their course, the Reavers might choose to ignore them.

Unfortunately their "way" isn't "we'll leave you alone if you do X" so much as "we'll definitely torture and kill you if you do Y."

I'm okay with having some unanswered questions as long as they don't seem impossible. I can go with the reavers (as presented) getting along just well enough to be able to do more violence to others, but I can't imagine them raising children.

Re:reevers

[L33tminion]

The Reaver traits aren't genetic, so far as anyone knows. Furthermore, the Reavers are probably sterile, what with flying around on starships with no core containment on the reactors. Those raped by the Reavers don't survive. Even people who just witness such an attack (themselves escaping detection) tend to go insane (the usual manifestation of this insanity is for them to start acting like Reavers themselves, so the Reavers may get a few new "recruits this way, but it can't be more than a handful). More relevantly, the Reavers have only existed for 12 years, and there were 30,000 of them, so they haven't died off yet.

As far as operating starships and so on, Reavers are still intelligent. They're just insanely aggesive towards anyone who's not a Reaver.

Re:reevers

[kathgar1]

It is a quote from a firefly episode, by Jayne.. the train job episode google says: http://www.wavsite.com/sounds.asp?id=107

Re:reevers

[Rei]

The series, though, deliberately leaves a number of things vague, and I think it works against them. And, as much as I greatly enjoyed the movie, they did leave a number of incontinuities (some of which could be explained simply by time passing, others which would be a lot harder)

  * Book's background: Mal clearly didn't know it at the time of the movie, so it's not likely to be resolved except possibly through external reference.

  * Simon going from prim and proper coward to in-person rescuer and rival alpha male (i.e., he went from aggressive before the series, to weak in the series, to aggressive). During the series, Simon was afraid to touch a weapon, did whatever Mal told him (even when it put River in danger), etc. Clearly there has been a change in the downtime for him to gain self confidence, but *he* rescued River from the facility? And since Simon was outright being given the tour, why did he seem so unknowing of what happened to her during the series?

  * Book's becoming sickly-looking, Kaylee's weight loss (oh, come on! Making her like a normal person was one of the draws of the series)

  * Multiple methods of reaver creation (gas vs. watching)?

  * The "bad guys" seeming completely different (not a single craft like the Dortmunder, which is what every alliance craft looked like in the series; the prime river-hunters (the Blue Man Group) seemingly having nothing to do with a hunt for her that lets thousands see her; etc.

The universe itself has a number of problems that they choose not to address:

  * Several dozen planets in the habitable zone with earthlike gravity. In the series, there was enough vagueness that it could be partly resolved by being a star cluster (like Alpha Centauri), but in the movie, they claim that it's a single star system.

  * No FTL... but they can control gravity? (artificial gravity onboard ships, "grav boot" being a critical part of the engine, etc). The main reason for avoiding FTL is that gravity control is a rather unrealistic proposal, physics-wise. If you can control gravity, you should be able to do FTL. Furthermore, their gravity control even works when other parts of the engine, and even life support, don't (i.e., Out Of Gas)?

  * Even the most dirt-poor planet is terraformed? Terraforming requires staggeringly large amounts of industry on the surface; even the most effective greenhouse gasses need to be produced in many-teratonnes-per-year quantities to warm a planet that's too cold, and that's one of the easiest terraforming tasks you could have. One could perhaps explain this by assuming that there are parts of each of the planets that are industrialized, or all of this huge infrastructure was lifted off, but that can be hard to buy.

  * Minor: What good is assigning a specific date to Firefly once you factor relativity into the trip to the other star and the star's motion relative to the sun? Are their years constantly warping by various factors? (this is ignoring the fact that Earth years aren't going to be comparable to the year of any particular Firefly-universe planet).

Lets not even get into psychics ("We live in a space ship, dear.") These are just a couple things that jump to mind. Firefly is "soft sci-fi", in that sci-fi is just really the background for the more important character and plot elements to interact on. Personally, I'd prefer that they have defined their universe a bit more solidly before they started; if I had some magical wish-granting planks to use on the series, I'd ask for that. Nonetheless, Firefly/Serenity is a jewel. :)

Now that the movie is out

[DeadSea]

Can we take down the serenity poll now that the movie has been out for a few days?

Let me ask again. Can we pleeeeeeeaaaaeeeaaaze take the serenity poll down and replace it with something else?

You know...

[Shads]

As a person I don't have alot of respect for OSC.

However as a writer I have alot of respect for his work and his ability to tell an interesting and complex story. Enders Game and The Tales of Alvin Maker are great stories and series in and of themselves and I think it's nice to see someone who sticks to their guns for a change and won't let their movie be utterly butchered... like ULG's Wizard of Earthsea, that was so sad. :(

That is about the absolute best review I've ever seen for any movie and it's enough to make me go see the movie several days sooner than I had planned... I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie now.

Hopefully OSC can get someone to make Ender's Game the right way, hell I'd even settle for the Tales of Alvin Maker... (speaking of which there is an MMORPG coming out based on that-- same people who did A Tale in the Desert.)

Links for the lazy like me

[Work Account]

Biography at Wikipedia

Personality critique at Kuro Five Hin

Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[HeroSandwich]

How does a TV show go from being cancelled to being made into a top notch movie without somebody at the Network being fired?

Re:Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[Kelson]

Not gonna happen. That would require the network to admit it made a mistake.

Re:Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[BewireNomali]

nobody watched the show. networks don't care how good a show is. they care that they program something that people want to watch. it's why american idol is still on. People actually get fired for championing shows that are good but no one watches. This is actually the more likely scenario.

Serenity is a movie with a $40 million budget (which means that its advertising budget was probably around $20-25 million) - this means that they spent $60-65 million on a film that earned $10 million its opening weekend.

You guys better buy that DVD.

Re:Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[timster]

Most of the huge TV shows of the last 30 years have had opening seasons that were not, shall we say, overwhelming. Seinfeld, for instance was not a hit its first year... or its second year.

Firefly had the misfortune of being released at a very odd time for TV, where shows were commonly cancelled after even a few episodes failed to attract mainstream attention. This was during the "reality TV" fad and was a common fate for shows at the time.

Studio execs have now realized that it takes time for a series to develop an audience, and a good show will do well in DVD sales even if the viewing audience is relatively small. As a result we are seeing more interesting and nuanced shows, with much less "reality TV" game shows.

Re:Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[Maxo-Texas]

It also takes showing the episodes in the correct order. Grrr!

Imagine if they showed Desperate Housewives or Lost in the order they showed Firefly.

Re:Whoa.. so when's it coming back to TV then?

[pintofblood]

I was lucky enough to see one of the screenings in early September. They had a Universal rep there that had tons of info. (Like where all the Easter Eggs were) She said that is was written into the contract that they could not make new episodes for 12 years after the date of cancellation. This was probably an attempt at not having the Sci-Fi Channel pick it up like they have done with so many other shows. She also said the movie had to hit 80 million in order for Universal to consider a sequel.

Similar sentiments to Terry Pratchett

[ackthpt]

Terry has spoken or written a number of times regarding the lack of Discworld movies. With good reason. He swung through town on his Thud! tour a couple weeks back and mentioned there had been some film in the works (prelimiary stuff) but that's once again on hold.

I read Ender's Game about 10 years ago and thought it was brilliant and very dark. The political side of the story is the real meat and potatoes, but that's usually the first thing that gets cut when making a movie, as producers are more interested in what Ender Wiggin is doing, not why.

It was not a bad movie...

[foxtrot]

But it wasn't the greatest movie ever, like some folks seem to think.

The camera work, for instance, left a lot on the table. I think Joss Whedon does a pretty good job directing TV, giving it a somewhat cinematic feel, but those same techniques applied to the big screen seem to leave it with a TV feel.

Plus, all the backstory required to cover 12 episodes of a TV show is very tough to do in a movie, and impossible if you want to leave any room at all to tell a story with the rest of the movie. The movie suffers some from this.

It's still easily the best movie I've seen this year, but if the next two happen ($10 million at the box office doesn't make that look likely...) I hope they grab a different director, and fortunately the backstory won't be an issue.

-F

Re:It was not a bad movie...

[br0ck]

I guess it's a matter of taste, to me it looked much better than some much more expensive movies. Some reviewers, like this one, were actually upset that it looked too polished--that it had lost it's TV retro feel. The director gives a lot more background on Jack Green's work in this interview and this book.

Re:It was not a bad movie...

[Edward Kmett]

Personally, I preferred the camera work in this film to that of most big budget films of late.

The main reason is that the camera wasn't afraid of holding a shot for a long time in a battle sequence. Since Gladiator, every big budget film has felt the need to feel 'gritty' by playing with framerates, shaking the hell out of the camera and flitting between viewpoints like mad. It has been making things all but unwatchable. I "watched" half of the Bourne Supremacy without looking at the screen simply because they wouldn't hold a shot long enough to let you get your bearings and would shake the hell out of it just to keep things edgy.

Sure Joss is a huge fan of the two-camera over-the-shoulder dialog sequences, but the simple camera work in that case is effective and does not distract from the dialog, which is his real strong suit.

So we wants Ender's Game to by like this.

[MindStalker]

Then why doesn't he just get Weaton to direct it. I'm sure among the two of them they can scrape up enough money.

Re:So we wants Ender's Game to by like this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whedon.

Although Wil Wheaton would be an amusing surprise. How 'bout it, CleverNickname?

Interesting story: in the mid-third-season climax of Babylon 5, arguably the high point of the entire series, Joe Straczynski needed to cast an XO to've taken command of the lead rebel cruiser after its captain was killed in action. It was really critical role, intensely pivotal to the way the whole series turned, and JMS wrote the part specifically for a certain actor fo whom he'd long been a fan. He told his casting director, point blank: I want this guy, I wrote the part for him, find out if he's available, do whatever it takes to get him if he's not, no auditions required.

So the casting director did just that, and the actor showed up on set, prepped and in full costume on the day of the shoot. One problem - Joe got the actor's first name wrong. So here was this total unknown to the writer/director/producer cast in what was arguably the series' most pivotal guest role, it was a done deal, everyone's on set, they're ready to start filming, no way to turn back now.

It turns out the actor was marvelous in the role - but it gives a whole new meaning to blind casting.

Card's Review was dead-On

[haplo21112]

I have long respected him as a writer and as a reviewer, my taste and his seem to line up alot, I guess thats why I like his books. Not my choice of religion, but then nobody's is...

I loved Serenity, it was a great movie, its about the story, take it for what its the story and what the story is saying. Is it high cinema, NO it not goona win any awards for its camera work. Thats what card is saying too, its about the story and the characters in the story. I also agress if Ender's game can't be made at least this good, then its not worth making.

I am sure that one of the many K5 cross overs will undoubtedly meantion the "Card is an Asshat" Story overthere...Personally I like the guy who wrote it for is fiction, but take is review of Card with a pound of Salt if you like over there and read it....

Intriguing.

[Leigh13]

Guess I'm going to have to see this now.

I never saw Firefly, but Ender's Game is one of my all-time favorite books. The trailers for Serenity haven't done much to get me interested in seeing it, nor has the marketing blitz they've tried to shove down my Tivo. Either the marketroids who put together the trailers are totally incompetent (quite likely), or else I might just end up disagreeing with OSC on this one (also likely.)

Either way, now I'm interested enough to find out more.

We hear ya screaming

[east coast]

From the blurb/article: If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made.

That's a fairly good outlook. As a fan of a lot of various fiction that I see get butchered in film I cringe everytime something comes around that I truely love only to find that it's either watered down or that the director/writers seem to have lost the original vision of the writing.

Take Lovecraft for example. Being very fond of the old gents work (obviously), I hate the crap that has his name associated with that is rarely more than a slasher film. I can appreciate the humor of Yanza's Re-Animator but the number of people who I encounter who think that somehow HPLs original work is anywhere on the same level of this film makes me fear for the future of Lovecraft's standing in the horror community. The Resurrected (based on the case of charles dexter ward), on the other hand, is a fine adaptation but still the original work is vastly superior. I still think (hope?) the film retains enough of Lovecraft's original vision to spur interested viewers into the works of HPL without being disappointed.

With the adaptation of American McGee's Alice I am fearful of what will happen. I love the game, I love McGee's vision but I really do not see how this is going to translate into a film.

I swear to God I will have a stroke on the day that Niven's Dream Park (or any other Niven work really) gets turned into a film. There is far too much going on there to make it a workable movie.

Strange choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? No reviews for Will and Grace or Queer as Folk...?

Not so well-respected outside sci-fi

[Anonymous Coward]

He may write sci-fi well, but he's a vocal homophobe in his non-fiction rants.

Read Maps in a Mirror

[dmeranda]

If you want to see some of his best writing (and most
diverse) get his short story anthology Maps in a Mirror.
It's also annotated, so it gives you a great peek into
his mind and how/why he writes certain stories. That
really shows off the brilliance of OSC as a writer.

Also, if you are or want to be a writer yourself (rather
than a typical /. complainer), then you can learn a lot
from OSC. His book on how to write SciFi is the best
on that topic. He also provides a lot of help for
writers on his website.

Really, what makes OSC great is perhaps not any particular
work, but rather his grasp of people, and that great
stories must be about the characters. Otherwise all you
have is a literary carchase and explosions, just special
effects with no meat.

Oh, and if the Full House thing at the end of the review
puzzles you, then you just haven't read enough of his
reviews to understand his sense of humor, or that he
is a devoted parent and thus sometimes cares about things
that may seem quite corny to adults.

Re:Respect? nope gone..

[jorenko]

Yes, Card is a nut, and a lot of his personal values don't mesh well with those of the majority of the geek community.

However, a good portion of his work is exceptional. Ender's Game really is a must read, even if the man enjoyed Friends, or thinks the gays will destroy society, or whatever it is he's going on about now.

A reality check

[sielwolf]

(which opened at #2 in the US box office this past weekend)

Just a warning but it only did $10.1 million of business against no real competition in a Hollywood dead period. So folks better fill the seats and get the word out or this franchise will pull a Hindenburg. The two major Hollywood seasons are Memorial Day to Labor Day (the Summer Blockbuster months) and Thanksgiving to the Oscars (where Academy Award winners and big holiday films are given a big push. Before Jaws this was the only money period in cinema). September just up to Thanksgiving is a dead period: Hollywood release B features, also rans and things that have been rotting on the shelves. Of course this lack of competition has lead to a surprise breakout every few years and if Serenity can get a good word of mouth campaign to keep up interest then it'll stay solvent.

Re:well respected author in my book

[Henry V .009]

The short story was fun. He should never have tried to expand it though.

For good Card-bashing, I'll point you to: Orson Scott Card Has Always Been an Asshat. It's a great read.

Re:Respect? nope gone..

[aardvarkjoe]

Orson Scott Card is a mediocre writer with an ego that is completely out of proportion to his talent.

Like most, the first book of his I read was Ender's Game. It isn't a bad book. But it isn't great, either. Everything in it has been done before, by better writers. Its popularity is due mostly to the "heroic geeky kid beats the adults and saves the world" theme, much like Harry Potter. The other couple books of his I've read seem pretty much the same.

Like I said, it's not really bad. I've got dozens of science fiction books on my shelves churned out by various writers that may not be great literature, but are still a fun afternoon read. Ender's Game should be one of them.

However, in the introduction to Ender's Game, he pretty much claimed to have invented the idea of wargames in the future. This "review" is pretty much just an excuse to talk about how great his book could be if made into a movie. This kind of nonsense leaves me with something of a bad taste in my mouth.

Ender's Game movie already in the works...

[Khopesh]

I'll tell you this right now: If Ender's Game can't be this kind of movie, and this good a movie, then I want it never to be made.

Ender's Game is slated for 2007, directed by Wolfgang Peterson and with a screenplay by Michael Dougherty. The IMDB report on the movie provides very little information, except that it was certainly in the works before the Serenity movie was publicized.

Dougherty doesn't have any high-quality screenplays under his belt (just X2, which was a fun movie, but not the greatest screenplay, and I would think Card agrees) ... does Card retain enough control to carry through with the above claim?

Full House?

[CloudsSpaz]

Why do so many people apparently think he's actually being serious in the last paragraph? This is Orscon Scott Card, people. That last statement is fully dipped in his usual dry sarcasm.

Re:I was with him...

[gid13]

Despite what the summary says, the Full House support is ravingly sarcastic.

Re:Just like Star Trek?

[nightsweat]

BIG difference, though. There were tens of millions of regular Star Trek viewers thanks to the reruns. Firefly has been almost impossible to find for most of its existence.

If you want to make money, you cater to your audience who mostly didn't know much. I loved the movie and have never seen a Firefly episode in its entirety. My guess is it does OK but not great at the box office but sells DVD's like nobody's business.

OSC doesn't really like Sci-Fi

[digidave]

OSC says he likes Sci-Fi, but what he really likes is drama with some edgy technology. As much as he puts down makers of bubble-gum-space-ship sci-fi for not being true to the genre, his own favourites such as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are no more true to the genre.

The problem with sci-fi movies may be the lack of real drama and relationships, but that doesn't make movies which excel on those two points any more sci-fi.

Serenity is a failure

[aeoo]

Personally I think Serenity has one fatal flaw -- the characters receive no development and there is no emotional connection to them. I haven't seen Firefly and have no background at all. I went to see it because of all the buzz, and I was disappointed. Who is River? I don't really understand. It's obvious she's psychic and she kicks ass, but why should I care for her? Should I care? Should I dislike her? I have no idea. I feel nothing whatsoever for River character. I can say the same for all the other characters. Who is the assassin? Why is he that way? Why is he going around killing things with a katana? Yes, I know all the obvious answers that are provided by the movie, but those answers were not enough to get me to feel anything whatsoever about that character.

I feel that some ideas were interesting, like the idea of "what happens if people are made ultra-docile?" and so on. However, this interesting idea took all of about 10-20 mins in the movie. The fights with the reavers (or whatever they're called) took 90% of the time, but content having to do with reaver's background took about 10% of the movie time. As a result, reavers are like stupid zombies that mindlessly attack things and I feel nothing, neither for them nor for the people they slay, simply because the situation is so absurd and nonsensical to me.

In short, Serenity may be a good movie-length feature for those who have seen Firefly, but it sucks badly as a stand-alone movie.

Re:Anybody here has seen the movie but NOT the sho

[nightsweat]

Never saw the show. LOVED the movie. It was character driven, had a plot, character development, a couple of great villans, tension and humor among the heroes, and a good zing at the end.

There were moments that I thought "Huh. I bet that's really a big deal if you're a fan of the series," but they didn't slow the movie down. You sympathized with characters in the movie because of their actions in the movie, not because of the series (which I haven't seen).

I will admit I walked out and put Firefly on my Netflix Queue as soon as I got home.

Re:Respect? nope gone..

[AJWM]

Orson Scott Card is a mediocre writer with an ego that is completely out of proportion to his talent.

I've never met the man, so I can't address that specifically. However, any author whose first novel wins both the Hugo and Nebula awards -- and then goes on to do that again the very next year with the sequel (Speaker for the Dead), certainly has a right to at least some of that ego.

This is like. Most lousy. Review.

[efuseekay]

I don't know about you.

But. Writing sentences like these.

Makes reading the review. Like.

Riding a really, really bumpy vehicle. You know, car.

It's so sad.

I have a caveat. I thought Ender's Game is boring.

I mean, really boring. The ending was so blatantly obvious.

I knew what was going to happen half way through the book.

Chill dude. Go see the moview anyway.

Re:This is like. Most lousy. Review.

[HarvardFrankenstein]

What he's doing there with his paragraphs is actually standard newspaper practice. I used to write for my college's newspaper, and my editor would hack apart my lengthy paragraphs into stuttering, syncopated messes all the time. The reasoning for it was the column width used in the paper, which is typically very narrow. Paragraphs that are normal length in a paperback sized page suddenly look enormous when copied to a newspaper column. In order to keep readers from being intimidated, and thus not reading the articles printed, editors usually chop long paragraphs up.

Serenity NOW!

[nightsweat]

I think you saw a different cut than I did. I'd never seen a Firefly episode and the movie had plenty of character development.

Why should you care for River? Well, I'm not sure you really should until later in the film. That uncertainty about whether she's a sympathetic person or an impersonal weapon carries the tension for the first part of the movie. The Reivers I thought were a great "force of nature" villain - impersonal, mysterious, and scary as hell.

I think most sci-fi fans will enjoy this movie. I loved it.

What, you say he's a Sci Fi Writer?

[ianscot]

Orson Scott Card is a mediocre writer with an ego that is completely out of proportion to his talent.

For whatever reason I've had five or six personal run-ins with mid-tier science fiction and fantasy authors. They've all fit your description: okay writers with colossal egos.

One example sent in a bombastic resume for a position we were hiring for. He asked for roughly twice the going market rate on the long-term contract, and his cover letter was two-plus pages of wildly arrogant justification for that. We all sat around reading it aloud and laughing, which was kind of low-class, but it was that unintentionally funny. Perhaps as a consequence of the unvarnished ego represented, he had also failed to edit it with any especial care.

That same guy shows up around the city I work in giving flambuoyant courses on the handling of concealed weapons.

Maybe the trials of getting published just select for people with more-than-healthy egos... But you know, I worked in book stores for a while, and then in a small publishing house, and other genres of book did not seem to be exclusively written by maladjusted ego cases. (Other genres didn't seem to be written almost exclusively by far-right-wing types, either.)

Re:well respected author in my book

[BootNinja]

the guy's a great author. No, he was a great author. Now he just uses his novels to force his own political/religious ideology down his readers' throats. After reading his last two offerings, Crystal City and Shadow of the Giant, I vowed that I would never read anything he wrote ever again. After reading the blatant anti-muslim sentiments in Shadow of the Giant, I had to go take a shower, because I felt filthy from reading that trash. Now, I know that All his previous novels included bias from his mormon upbringing, but at least it used to be subtle. Now, he feels that he has to smash us over the head with it, and I'm rather sick of it. Card has metamorphosed from a truly awesome scifi writer, into a lazy hack who only writes for the money, and I for one will not be further supporting him until he can prove to me that he still knows how to write a decent story.

Hollywood's Attension Deficit Disorder

[stuffduff]

Two things are happening here, one of them is IMHO a damn fine movie, go see it; the other is a quiet, elegant miracle that should speak volumes to the entertainment industry.

Fox wanted not to just broadcast Firefly, they wanted to manipulate it to pander to their low perception of their audiences' values. Fox failed to appreciate what they really had and they canned it. So if something this good is unavailable on television, especially if it is not available on Fox; well, they have no one to blame but themselves.

Fans of the show assembled an absolutely unprecedented response, one greater than all of their predecessors, to raise the funds, take the ads out in Variety and they rook it to the web. Why did they do it? It's just like OSC said; they cared about the characters.

And who was the one person in all of Hollywood who didn't snooze through it? Chalk that one up to Mary Parent.

Now failure for this kind of project is always an option, don't get me wrong, but after all, this was and is a risky business.

So what actually did happen? Well they re-assembled cast & crew and conceived a fine, hand crafted and heart felt movie.

The decision to share the movie with friends and fans was also a huge risk. But the word of mouth was good and there were no spoilers. Because the fans 'Believed.' Belief's a funny thing. Maybe Hollywood should take a lesson from that one single point, as it alone will be responsible for the success of Serenity.

Re:well respected author in my book

[(trb001)]

I wouldn't read several in a row, it would upset my sensibilities.

Does the world you live in have the same effect on you? The vast majority of the world is religious or has religious beliefs, so discounting or ignoring religion in any piece of literature is to ignore a fundamental foundation of society.

While Card inserts religious themes into lots of his works, it's not usually the overriding message or story (with exceptions).

--trb

bashing muslims?

[emarkp]

His comments about extreme Islam has to do with his interpretation of geopolitics--it has nothing to do with his religion.

Read his political page here.

Re:bashing muslims?

[Scrameustache]

His comments about extreme Islam has to do with his interpretation of geopolitics--it has nothing to do with his religion.

It may have little to do with it.
But when a religious person discusses another, competing religion, it's fair to say that his religion has something to do with his views.

Literary Fiction isnt for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is more of a difference in taste and what constitutes quailty.

Literary fiction (i.e. not "pulp" or "pop") attempts to tell a story by being character driven, not plot/event driven. A character has an arc, or a personality trait that drives the story. Sometimes a story is a collection of characters and their interactions. Literary fiction does not always have to be as obviously literary as Salinger or some of Vonnegut. But if you walk into a bookstore and peruse the sci-fi section, only 10% of those books could be classified as literary versus pure genre pulp. Besides not being plot driven, literary works (I know this sounds incongruent) use the standard "show don't tell". I.e. a pulpy/genre story will just say "This made me mad" or "he was a troubled soul"... because those are revelations that are not convincing (not earned) in and of themselves. But describing thoughts (first person) or scene paint a more detailed picture, and make a story a piece of art.

What makes science fiction, "science" is the attempt to ask the reader to believe something unbelievable, that may not or not yet be scientifically possible. Some argue that Slaughterhouse Five (while literary) is certainly Sci-Fi (time traveling, aliens, etc). But it is considered to be "literary fiction" as well, but often a literary author will dismiss it as "magic realism".

That is not to say that "pulp" books can't be fun to read, but they are not very stimulating and some people are bored by that style of writing. The same is true for the medium of movies. The difference is that in a movie, the visual aspect is as much as part of the art as is the story telling. But a movie that is pure visuals does not appeal to the artist or it appeals only to the visual artist. Take much of Kubrick's later works: while visually inspiring, the story behind "A Clockwork Orange" is muddled as it makes a hero out of Alex (yes I know it is from a book of the same name). But the movie is pure visual/cinematic delight.

Other movies rely heavily on action and events to move the story forward. Some (like myself) find movies like this to be largely a waste of time, while it is clear that there are those that like action and such. The Matrix, at its heart, is not a good story, from a literary perspective. Card points this out. Star Wars (especially the later movies) are horrible muddles of plot point jumping. Card argues that Kaufman is writing Sci-Fi, and in a way he is. Not every sci fi story is "spaceships" and "explosions".

Take Bradbury, for example. Farenheit 451 is not about spaceships. Even Stephenson and Gibson don't write about spaceships (not always). Yet, some of Gibson's work is literary ("Pattern Recognition"), and you will find it in the sci fi section. Heinlein is a good example as well. Reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Stranger in a Strangeland" gives you the literary Heinlein. Reading "Starship Troopers" gives you the political Heinlein (but the opposite conclusion as the movie). But he still wrote alot of pulp, too ("Have Spacesuit Will Travel", "Glory Road", etc).

Card has his moments as a writer. Ender's Game is fairly literary, character driven. And alot of the derivative works are as well (of course as Ender changes, his character changes, i.e. "Speaker for the Dead"). Although I am tired of the whole saga.

FWIW, I liked Serenity much more than any other sci-fi movie (save Equillibrium, but for other reasons) in the last ten years. Really. I didn't even expect to. I was not a huge fan of the series, but I was suprised. And I know that a "literary" story does not sell, people like sex, drugs, and explosions. Othewise we would see Lethem's work in film (wouldn't that be nice?). So I agree with Card, for the most part, but i am not a huge Kaufman fan. Adaptation was horrible.

OSC -- Just say No

[arth1]

He may write sci-fi well, but he's a vocal homophobe in his non-fiction rants.

The later Ender Wiggins books, as well has his whole Alvin Maker series have serious credibility problems due to the proselytizing. He found Jesus, I found other authors.

As for this "review" of Serenity, OSC writes:

Because for me, a great film -- sci-fi or otherwise -- comes down to relationships and moral decisions. How people are with each other, how they build communities, what they sacrifice for the sake of others, what they mean

Ah, so it's a chick flick then. Great -- I almost wasted ten bucks there.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:OSC -- Just say No

[dar]

Oh yeah. No guy would ever want to see a movie that has relationships and moral decisions in it.

Re:Respect? nope gone..

[renderhead]

It's become fashionable in the last few years for geeks to bash on Orson Scott Card, especially those who disagree with his worldview. My theory is that it gives them geek cred to say "I'm so morally pure that I'm not afraid to tear down one of my past idols when he disagrees with me." It's quite cliche by now to read the three following statements in any online O.S.C. discussion:

1.) "Orson Scott Card is a great writer. Too bad he's such a nut."

2.) "I used to love Orson Scott Card until I read some of his political essays. Now I refuse to read anything he writes."

3.) "Orson Scott Card is overrated. I've never thought he was any good. No, really!"

Frankly, it's tiresome, and it's rare to find anyone who will take on his point of view with a real argument before dismissing him outright. The essay about "Innocent Genocide" that's floating around this discussion is an unusually intelligent exception, and even that spends its time trying to prove that Card is saying something specific without refuting it in any meaningful way. It's taken as a given that once Card's "true" meaning is known, the reader will automatically reject that meaning as false or dangerous.

Personally, I think Harlan Ellison is a horse's ass, but I don't pop up in /. discussions about the man to say "Harlan Ellison is a horse's ass! He's never been that good of a writer, and you should all dismiss everything he writes without thinking about it critically." It's not germane to the discussion, and worse, it's not even intelligent.

Ender's game is not great SF

[bani]

It's actually incredibly shallow. It's something I might recommend to kids as "my first SF novel" but that's about it.

ender's game might make an okay movie, but then modern movies - especially SF - are not particularly known for being cerebral masterpieces.

There's much better SF out there than enders game. For instance, any of the known space stuff by Niven. Greg Bear. Asimov. Herbert. Clarke. Those are great SF writers. OSC is a novice hack by comparison. He can write decently enough, but his stories are shallow, he telegraphs events light-years off, and story development is as subtle as being clubbed over the head with a baseball bat.

i'd really much rather see a larry niven or greg bear movie than an osc one.

Re:Ender's game is not great SF

[pilkul]

I wouldn't even let my kids read Ender's Game. The book is a megalomaniacal wish-fulfillment fantasy. Ender is this perfect superman who murders several children and yet remains perfectly innocent and good as far as Card is concerned. Because they are evil bullies and he is only defending himself --- "thoroughly". I can see why kids love it, it's so satisfying for a kid being bullied around in real life to imagine that scenario.

Not to mention, he and his siblings are such geniuses and so above the mass of humanity that his brother is able to easily conquer the world by the sheer power of his intellect. It's heady stuff for a scholastically over-average kid who fancies himself smarter than his peers. That's why Ender's Game is popular, not because it has any value as SF. I wouldn't trust kids to understand the difference between the twisted world of the book and reality.

See this article from John Kessel for more extended criticism among these lines.

Re:Ender's game is not great SF

[Kismet]

This sort of subjectivism regarding OSC became quite stylish about the time that a certain interview came out, revealing some of Card's religiously held sentiments. People who were once quite passive about Card, or even complimentary, suddenly became his worst critics. I know some who loved Ender's Game, and then found out that Card is Mormon. Now they hate it. It's similar to what has happened to L. Ron Hubbard, now that Scientology is a prime target of persecution.

Several years ago, Slashdot's conversations about OSC were generally quite positive. Now you can guarantee that any OSC discussion will contain the following elements:

1) Ender's Game is a Nazi-loving revenge saga. This is a recent argument based on a particular review from an OSC critic. Disciples of this "received" idea now push it as gospel truth.
2) OSC is a homophobe because he disagrees with the gay lifestyle and with gay marriage, even after science has proven that these things are perfectly normal.
3) I hate OSC, but I still think his books are pretty good.
4) I used to love Ender's Game, but now that I'm older and smarter, I find that I hate it because it's actually quite shallow. People who still like it are nostalgics.
5) OSC is a crazy mormon (followed by a list of crazy things about mormonism). Usually followed up by a post redirecting the interested and "uneducated" reader to any number of anti-mormon sites.
6) General fear and loathing of OSC and his "political" ideals. This is followed by a good dose of anti-right-wing hate talk.
7) Posts from OSC apologists (hi!) interspersed throughout the discussion.
8) OSC is trying to brainwash us with his books and I resent it.

Anyone can say that OSC is a novice hack. Well, I've read several of those other SF novelists mentioned in the parent post, whose books I also enjoy. I find that, lacking the anti-OSC bigotry, it is difficult for me to categorize OSC as a novice hack. Ender's Game is an award winning SF novel and was once quite well-regarded by those very deeply interested in the genre.

I find that OSC is quite outspoken, but nowhere near the bigot that his critics are.

Re:Ender's game is not great SF

[khallow]

I'd put Card on the same level as Bear or Niven. All three authors have written some great stuff and some truly embarrassing stuff. Despite some of the obvious ploys, clumsy forshadowing, and emotional exploitation, I still think Ender's Game is an excellent work.

Indeed!

[Grendel Drago]

The first time I read it, I was in middle school or early high school, and thought it was the best damn thing I ever read. I reread it late in college, and couldn't shake the feeling that something about it was very, very wrong---but I didn't really know what it was until I read that article, along with "Sympathy for the Superman". It's an astonishingly well-constructed fanwank, playing to the infantile fantasies that people like us eventually grow out of. (Taking over the world by talking smack on Slashdot? Saving the world through gaming prowess? Killing endless waves of slavering bullies jealous of his ubermenschen nature because he's just that superior?)

Re:Respect? nope gone..

[pythorlh]

Which has nothing to do with his review. If it did, he'd have been ranting about the fact that Serenity has a bi-sexual prostitute on board for half the film. Instead, he gives a thoughtful analysis of why this movie is better than other "sci-fi" movies in his opinion. At no point does he mention his religion, or yours. Frankly, he's a bigot. But he's also an intelligent, well-spoken, and well-respected author. Which is why he's occasionaly worth listening to. Nobody's perfect.

Ender's Game

[Zzanath]

Regarding this article, the author expounds on exactly how I felt about Ender's Game: it's a violent nerd revenge fantasy. The reason it was popular then and continues to draw new converts is that the book is simply begging SF readers to identify with the super-intelligent, ultra-skilled outcast with a heart of gold who is beset on all sides by bullies, uncaring authority figures and a brutal system. And when he's pushed into a corner, he responds by killing his enemies. What middle school geek isn't going to identify with that?

It's a decent enough book, and held my attention up until the last few pages (with Ender nursing a bugger from his super-child teat). Unlike most first-time readers, I had the benefit of being older than 20 when first picking it up. Like many other things from childhood (Star Wars, anyone?), the book picks up a gilded nostalgia that prevents an objective look later on. I'm no literary critic, but it's interesting to see other people reach the same conclusion.

"Forget about the Box Office"

[fnurb]

As Edward J. Epstein explained more fully in Slate back in May:
http://www.slate.com/id/2118819

In 2003, box office receipts accounted for less than 20% of a movie's revenues. Home entertainment provides more than 80%. Since then, the shift from theater to home has only accelerated. Last year, Walmart alone accounted for more than a third of studio revenues in video and DVD.

Home sales account for an even greater percentage of profits for the studios, given the high costs of theater promotion.

In fact, most studios expect to *lose* money as long as a film is in the theaters. The purpose of theater release is to build recognition and audience awareness, NOT to make money - not any more.

So, using your number of $10 million for Serenity's opening weekend, the movie can expect to make around $55-$65 million, if not more (given the strong cult fan base for the series and a lot of initial hesitation, given precedent of lousy films based on TV series).

Epstein uses the example of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which made only $8.1 mil in its opening weekend in the theaters--but sold over 1.5 million DVDs during its first week in the stores.

Re:Killer_000 gives too much credit

[slaida1]

It's just a novel, an appealing novel to most young people. I've personally never understood why some have to read books with magnifying glass, looking for hidden messages and seeing underlying secrets when there necessarily aren't any.

Either they take themselves too seriously or they take fiction too seriously. In both cases, they are annoying lot and should stuff their beliefs where sun doesn't shine.

"Creating the Innocent Killer"..riight. Card "created" a book. Not a killer.

Given OSC's political views, I think it can pretty safely be said that the guy is basically a fascist sympathesizer or something else equally distasteful.

Could you people please just fuck off already with your fascist-this and nazi-that? That subject got old and tired years ago and one might believe that Godwin's Law was sufficient hint to drop it. It's boring history and I'm starting to hate people who still whine about it as much as I hate neo-nazis.

There are no aliens.

[Scrameustache]

Alien costumes were

One of your crack-induced hallucinations.

Orson Scott Card's Secret Plan

[frank_adrian314159]

1. Write movie review.
2. Put on secret magic underpants.
3. ????
4. Profit!

Re:well respected author in my book

[ak_hepcat]

> There is a flawed perception that eugenics wasn't performed except by the Nazis.

And then there's controlled breeding of animals other than human. Is there any difference?

No. Really. Is there? Is either 'right' ?

It's a great essay question for folks.