Slashdot Mirror
Ender in Exile
stoolpigeon writes "Orson Scott Card's work Ender's Game began as a novelette, which he says he wrote as a means of leading up to the full story he had developed, Speaker for the Dead. Ender's Game was published as a full novel in 1985, and won the Hugo and Nebula awards (as did Speaker for the Dead in '86 and '87). I think it is safe to say that Ender's Game is ensconced in its position as a science fiction classic. Now, 23 years later, Card has finished the first direct sequel to Ender's Game in his new novel Ender in Exile."
Keep reading for the rest of JR's review.
Ender in Exile
author
Orson Scott Card
pages
377
publisher
Tor Books
rating
7
reviewer
JR Peck
ISBN
978-0765304964
summary
A good midquel in the Ender's series
While Speaker for the Dead was published right after Ender's Game, there is a huge gap in time between the two stories. Due to the effects of traveling at close to light speed, thousands of years pass between the two novels. Chapter fifteen of Ender's Game does give an explanation of the events that fill that time. Card also went on to write other novels set in the Ender universe that do not involve Ender directly but rather other students from the battle school and family. This makes Ender in Exile more of a 'midquel', a term Card uses in the afterword, than a sequel. Because of this, from a high level view of the plot, readers who have stuck with the saga will not find much new here. This is a closer look at events already related in other books for the most part.
Card is an able author and this story is solid. Much of it reminded me of some of my favorite classic science fiction. There is colonization, extended periods of life aboard space ships, discovery of alien civilization and not much in the way of hard science. Card's primary purpose is to analyze and consider the human condition as opposed to exploring technological possibilities or theories. Almost everything that is highly advanced is the result of alien technology and is never explained or understood. Much of it functions on an almost mystical or magical level.
Ender is a young adolescent with an incredibly unique life and mind. In this novel we see him transitioning and growing from a youth into a man. I was often reminded of Herbert's Paul Atreides when he was first on the run in the desert with his mother in the book Dune. Ender is aware that he is different and has amazing capabilities but he is unsure just what the full ramifications of that difference are. He is trying to find his place in humanity and in the universe as a whole.
The story encompasses four basic plot lines that flow one to the next. I never felt any great sense of urgency or climax and resolution in the story. Really what it felt like was a thread weaving together pieces from the earlier stories. While the themes and issues were great, sometimes the characters were remote or the working of the issues very subtle. The most impacting and emotional moments relied upon knowledge of events from the other books in the series to carry their full force. In that light the novel is very effective. I think that fans of the Ender series, already biased towards this work, are going to be very pleased and enjoy Ender in Exile greatly. They are going to get to dig just a bit deeper into this world and it's primary character Andrew Wiggin. They will enjoy moments of discovery and the answer to questions that may have been in the back of their minds, possibly for the last twenty years or so.
On the other hand, someone new to the series may not be as enthralled and may find the story to be a bit flat. If I could I would rate this book in two ways. For those who have not read all the other Ender books, a 6 or 7. This is not bad since the book is designed to sit in the middle of an existing set of tales. It is possible that someone could pick this book up without having read a single Ender story or novel and track with it. I think they would even find it interesting if a little flat. But for a fan of the series with a high degree of familiarity with the characters and events of this world it is probably a solid 8 or 9. At the very least, Card has done nothing to tear down what he has built up but has completed a sturdy addition to the body of work.
In the afterword Card has some interesting comments to make about reader involvement in helping him to write this story. He also explains how he would like to approach some discrepancies between this story and what is related at the conclusion to Ender's Game. I thought it was a sign of the times that an author, facing a large and complex world he had created but could not track on his own, was able to use the internet to call upon readers assistance in achieving as much consistency as possible.
This is a thoughtful, well written book. It may even motivate some to dig up an old copy of Ender's Game so that they can relive the enjoyment of a classic and see what is new to find. I think that most will not be disappointed. Some may not be as thrilled as they would hope, but there is something here for any science fiction fan.
On a side note, in conjunction with the release of this new book, Marvel Comics is doing a limited series comic adaptation of the original Ender's Game novel.
You can purchase Ender in Exile from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Card is an able author and this story is solid. Much of it reminded me of some of my favorite classic science fiction. There is colonization, extended periods of life aboard space ships, discovery of alien civilization and not much in the way of hard science. Card's primary purpose is to analyze and consider the human condition as opposed to exploring technological possibilities or theories. Almost everything that is highly advanced is the result of alien technology and is never explained or understood. Much of it functions on an almost mystical or magical level.
Ender is a young adolescent with an incredibly unique life and mind. In this novel we see him transitioning and growing from a youth into a man. I was often reminded of Herbert's Paul Atreides when he was first on the run in the desert with his mother in the book Dune. Ender is aware that he is different and has amazing capabilities but he is unsure just what the full ramifications of that difference are. He is trying to find his place in humanity and in the universe as a whole.
The story encompasses four basic plot lines that flow one to the next. I never felt any great sense of urgency or climax and resolution in the story. Really what it felt like was a thread weaving together pieces from the earlier stories. While the themes and issues were great, sometimes the characters were remote or the working of the issues very subtle. The most impacting and emotional moments relied upon knowledge of events from the other books in the series to carry their full force. In that light the novel is very effective. I think that fans of the Ender series, already biased towards this work, are going to be very pleased and enjoy Ender in Exile greatly. They are going to get to dig just a bit deeper into this world and it's primary character Andrew Wiggin. They will enjoy moments of discovery and the answer to questions that may have been in the back of their minds, possibly for the last twenty years or so.
On the other hand, someone new to the series may not be as enthralled and may find the story to be a bit flat. If I could I would rate this book in two ways. For those who have not read all the other Ender books, a 6 or 7. This is not bad since the book is designed to sit in the middle of an existing set of tales. It is possible that someone could pick this book up without having read a single Ender story or novel and track with it. I think they would even find it interesting if a little flat. But for a fan of the series with a high degree of familiarity with the characters and events of this world it is probably a solid 8 or 9. At the very least, Card has done nothing to tear down what he has built up but has completed a sturdy addition to the body of work.
In the afterword Card has some interesting comments to make about reader involvement in helping him to write this story. He also explains how he would like to approach some discrepancies between this story and what is related at the conclusion to Ender's Game. I thought it was a sign of the times that an author, facing a large and complex world he had created but could not track on his own, was able to use the internet to call upon readers assistance in achieving as much consistency as possible.
This is a thoughtful, well written book. It may even motivate some to dig up an old copy of Ender's Game so that they can relive the enjoyment of a classic and see what is new to find. I think that most will not be disappointed. Some may not be as thrilled as they would hope, but there is something here for any science fiction fan.
On a side note, in conjunction with the release of this new book, Marvel Comics is doing a limited series comic adaptation of the original Ender's Game novel.
You can purchase Ender in Exile from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.
Yeah, kinda peaked at Speaker for the Dead, went downhill since. Cue XKFD comic but I'll let someone else whore for that karma.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Much as I enjoyed the Ender series, Scott Card has revealed himself to be a massive douche. I'm not buying or reading his books anymore.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
That the story below this one is about a woman wanting to use a bionic eye.
I have been impressed with the enderverse at any point. This is a good topic to look at but I am curious what happed with Bean after his personal exile. I have difficulties even imagining how that turns out but, I can't see the excitement in that becoming a story unless Ender finds him in giant form on some other planet that a child killed and turned into a playground perhaps.
throw the baby out. The bathwater is cold
You really never see where this thing is going until the end.
And in the end, Trinity dies. Never saw that coming.
WARNING SPOILER ALERT
Why is is that the backstory is always more interesting than the "real story they want to tell."
Speaker for the Dead was a good book, but nowhere near as good as Ender's Game.
I think its the George Lucas effect, limited goals and limted means make for a lot more creativity and originality.
I know someone is going to point out "unique" is a boolean state, but I think that's the wrong way of thinking about it... technically, everything is probably unique, since you can just redefine your thinking of "its kind". And then again, nothing is 100% unique, because it falls under the category of "thing". So it makes sense to think about degrees of uniqueness.
Admittedly "incredibly unique" probably still isn't the deftest choice of words, but I've seen much worse.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
Card also went on to write other novels set in the Ender universe that do not involve Ender directly but rather other students from the battle school and family.
This is of course, the Shadow series featuring Bean, Petra, Achilles, etc. I'm pretty sure in Ender in Exile we get to see the results from Achille's children being out in the universe.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
I have only read 'Ender's Game' a few years back, but I wanted to get into the series, but from what I hear this series (based on book release dates) jumps all over the place. So to those that have read more books in the series than I have....which books and in which order should I tackle this series. Should I read then front cover to back cover or start somewhere in the middle:). Is this like the Star Wars series, in that it won't really matter unless which ones I read unless you want to go back and re-read some books to look for inconsistencies.
Card's primary purpose is to analyze and consider the human condition as opposed to exploring technological possibilities or theories. Almost everything that is highly advanced is the result of alien technology and is never explained or understood. Much of it functions on an almost mystical or magical level.
I always thought this was the point. In science fiction, the high technology is a plot device and how our interaction with said device describes aspects of human behavior is the story. I do not need to know how a technological fountain of youth works. I just need to know it makes people young again and requires something of a high cost personal cost, say the ability to feel love. How society treats the creator of this device, whether people who refuse to use it are ostracized by society, do people who use the machine experience regret? The dilithium crystal configuration of the device is irrelevant compared to those aspects of the story.
Just my two cents.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
I thought the book was one of Card's better ones, if this is the last one in the (Ender) series then I think he should be happy with how it ended. It was nice to finally see a resolution to the bigger cliff hanger we got at the end of Shadow of the Giant (there is supposed to be another book in the works that takes place after Giant to finish up some of the other loose ends).
I always thought Ender taking short trips but leaving the universe behind was an interesting idea. Talk about fleeing from your past. A short trip to you and everyone you ever knew is dead. Even being famous, he was able to start fresh.
and here's your flame:
1. sci-fi / fantasy is an object of much overwrought disapproval from many religious groups. While I had thought the issue to be mostly smoldering rather than active, the Christian Children's Fund declined a large donation from the estate of the late Gary Gygax one of the inventors of the Dungeons and Dragons game. http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/11/04/charity-declines-money-from-group-associated-with-gygax
2. what pleasure do you get from trolling around /. looking for any possible angle to malign groups you are not a member of? Because you seem in danger of embodying the sort of intolerance most atheists accuse religions of.
3. just because you can make a circular argument does not make you some sort of mental giant. such things are only aesthetically pleasing when they express some truth or fact concisely. yours does not.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Sorry. I just do not.
Rich Irwin.
The problem is that as you get further and further away from current science you end up more and more in the realm of "magic".
And if the writer is resorting to that, then the story is probably going to be pretty light and dependent upon plot contrivances to get the writer out of any corner he ends up writing himself into.
In the fountain of youth example, it could matter. How available is the process? Is it possible to restrict who gets it? What about pricing? Would there be wars over it with eternal youth offered as the plunder? Or is the secret something anyone can cook up in their kitchen using dandelions and shower scum?
Light stories are good for obvious moral statements (think "Twilight Zone"). But they tend to fall apart on anything longer.
The more basic the change is (eternal youth) the more ramifications it will have on society. And the less likely the writer will have addressed them. Or even thought of them.
Yet Another Repressed Homo?
Thinly veiled literary references to buggery (ie: sodomy) not withstanding.
Ender's game was never good.
Amen, brother. One of the lamest books of all time. When it won the Hugo and Nebula I realized that those awards no longer meant anything.
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Ender proves himself by posthumously baptizing all the souls of his victims, thereby justifying all the killing and giving the story a feel-good Hollywood ending.
http://urlbit.us/e4v
Card is certainly entitled to his opinions. However, this ex-fan of his will never be able to read another word of his until he has a change of heart.
Why is it that such great minds like Orson Scott Card, William Shockley, and even Charles Darwin have to have a nasty bigoted side that sullies up what would otherwise be great accomplishments?
The world will never know.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
1. Ender in Exile is the first sequel to Ender's Game that is actually centered around Ender Wiggin himself, while he's still a child.
Most of it takes place between chapters 14 and 15 of Ender's Game. It involves characters from the Shadow books, including the mother and son who go off to a space colony at the end of Shadow of the Giant.
So Exile is a sequel to two different books. But you don't have to have read either of them. All the information you need to understand Ender in Exile is contained within the book. If you've read the other Ender books, you'll recognize characters and events -- but it's been tested on readers who've never read an Ender book, and they understood the whole story without a problem.
It's a tale of soldiers who can't go home. They won their war, but they end up so far from Earth that if they tried to return, by the time they got back, everybody they knew and cared about would be dead. What was the point of returning? So they stay and colonize their former enemy's land.
Ender Wiggin is appointed to be governor of such a colony. But because he's still only a child, it is assumed by the captain of the starship carrying him there that Ender will only be a figurehead, while the captain himself becomes the real governor.
That's far from being Ender's only challenge -- for instance, there's the mother who thinks her daughter will be the perfect mate for Ender (that's the Jane Austen portion of the novel), and an alien species that is discovered on the planet before Ender arrives.
I think this may be the best of the Ender novels. It comes out on 11 November in bookstores everywhere.
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2008-11-02.shtml
Ender's game, and many years later, Ender's Shadow, were two good books.
The other six books, 3 in the original and 3 in the shadow series are written with even less talent that Douglas Adam's later books.
My Starcraft 2 Blog
Not in the article in 'Civilization Watch', but in his blog for the Mormon Times.
Link is http://mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/orson_scott_card/?id=3237
Personally, bigotry like this isn't enough, in itself, for me to reject a writer. But, it would certainly color my view of what he writes - any lessons or morals expounded in the book would have to be put to extra scrutiny in light of the moral defect of the writer (to put it plainly).
Why?
Ask the writer of the article that question, since I was referencing his opinion.
Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and douche? His life's work is meaningless to me.
Because he has opinions you don't like, his work's meaningless? That doesn't sound overly harsh/condemning to you? Card has many openly homosexual characters in his books, and I can't think of a single one that's a villain.
You, on the other hand, can't stand that he thinks homosexuality is wrong and speaks out about it, therefore anything he does is tainted. Congratulations, sir, you've successfully demonized people on the other side of the argument and made intelligent, rational discourse nearly impossible.
On the religious side I pity Card. He feels some bizarre persecution of his religion that I don't think has occurred in our lifetime. If you read Folk of the Fringe Or similar collection of short stories, it comes across in his work. (Obviously it also comes across more aggressively in his political rants.)
I'll give the book a chance, but I might check it out from a library.
Think Deeply.
Card thought to himself "I need an easy project guaranteed to make money from the fanbois, so I'll go back to the goldmine and crank out some backstory."
I lost a lot of respect for Card when I started reading his sites, especially his "World Watch" columns that are published in the Rhino Times. As a columnist, he's a stupid, irrational thinker, and rationalizing this with books that seem really smart clued me in to the degree to which authors get to dress the stage on which they argue in their novels. Whatever point they're trying to make exists in a universe constructed to make that point, which is rhetorically compelling but thoroughly intellectually dishonest.
So what happens when Card tries to write about the real world? He comes off as a bombastic jagoff who lays his bigotries out flat and can't understand why his opinions aren't more respected.
I still like Ender's Game and some of the sequels (unlike most, I quite enjoyed Xenocide). But the author is, in real life, the sort of pedantic crank that, if you're unfortunate enough to be at dinner with them, you do a lot of nodding and sipping and hope the conversation just moves on.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
I was a huge fan of Ender's Game. I avoided Speaker for the Dead for decades--DECADES!--despite it winning the hugo and nebula because "sequals always suck".
I was sooo wrong. Please, please, please read Speaker for the Dead!
If you consider yourself to be a fan of science-fiction you are just delusional if you haven't read this book.
obviously no deficiencies vs. no obvious deficiencies
The man wrote brilliant novels, for sure but as he is living today I will never purchase another because I can't stand the idea of him having more money to spend on anti-civil rights measures.
Let's take a look at the "cherry" kool-aid you've been drinking and see what it's made of. We can do this by flipping this around, and even including the strawman that those of your view are parading about. What if you were to write up a proposition to the constitution next to the definition of freedom of religion to say "Mormonism shall not be considered a religion, but shall have all the same rights, protections, and legal recognitions of a religion." and see just how little anyone will care? No rights were taken away, so it's not an anti-civil rights measure unless they're victimizing themselves out to make it one. As long as a people consider themselves a victim, they will never receive equal recognition in the eyes of those of which they consider themselves victims. This is the fault of a gay rights movement when they have all the same legal rights, protections, and recognitions as anyone else.
This is like 7% of mathematicians demanding that rectangles can now be called 'squares' and that squares, as we now know them, be known as 'traditional squares' -- it's simply ridiculous. They're both shapes. They both have 4 sides intersecting at right angles, but their definitions are as old as their recognition, and changing those definitions falls outside the right of a minority vote, no matter how loud or angry they get about it.
So go ahead and buy his books, because he never supported such a measure as one you described.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
no one in Hollywood would risk offending the "gay" mafia nor would they dare go up against the inevitable boycotts and protests.
And I agree!
Would you buy a painting, no matter how great, from Hitler? (He was an artist when he was quite young I understand). Knowing his views, I certainly wouldn't and I'm neither gay nor Jewish!
This isn't a case of being P.C., it is a case of just being C.
I wonder if similar things were written back in the days of miscegenation?
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
If you read Cards books backwards Satan tells you to kill farm animals.
I found Enders Game a bit happy clappy, but when i tried to read some of the later books from the library awful and i never finished them.
(humour for those of you who dont have it)
Took me a while to find this.
I don't like politics by republicans... and I am allowed to ignore anything that any republican says.
That doesn't make me smart, though.
that Benders Game was a lot more entertaining than Enders Game.
This review shows plainly why Hollywood keeps on regurgitating more of the same.
What's the minimum range? Maximum range? Minimum amount of material that can be moved? Maximum amount of material that can be moved? Etc.
They tend to fail whenever it is convenient to the plot for them to fail.
Other times they are 100% effective, safe and reliable. People who do not trust them are mocked for being Luddites.
They sprout new functionality as needed to further the plot.
And they were initially written in because having to use the shuttle every time would have been too expensive to film.
The problem is that since they are not based upon any current technology, any plot that would be instantly invalidated by them simply requires that the writer render them non-functional for the duration. Try to number the different problems with the transporters in all the TV shows and movies.
Warning: side effects may include death, alternate dimensions and/or evil/non-evil duplication / division.
Others have posted this, and if this is the link, I'm still not seeing it.
'Bringing down' a government doesn't have to mean violent overthrow. That said, I realize that it's 'hip' to be gay or support gay rights these days, but not all of us agree with gay marriage - and never will.
And as much as the media like to portray the singing, can-banging gay throngs as if they are the majority, the real majority voted in California and the answer was, 'no'. Screaming and crying about it will almost certainly not change their minds.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I wouldn't buy a book from a Neo-Nazi either, no matter how good it is. At least you know with "Mein Kampf" Hitler is not getting any of the proceeds from sales.
Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition. - Adam Smith (1723-90)
I agreed with Lewis's religious views, at least when he was writing theology books, and even so I found the preachiness in Narnia annoying. The preachiness in the Out of the Silent Planet was a bit more central to it, and fit a bit better.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Lots of writers have fanboys, of course. So does Card. But it takes a special kind of writer to have not just people who irrationally love his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons, but people who irrationally hate his works for imaginary or irrelevant reasons. It seems that Card is such a writer.
Being or traditional marriage is not bigotry, just ask Barrak Obama, Joe Biden.
Only 2 states allow gay marriage (not by the peoples choice), is the rest of the country is wrong? Think about it.
Keep up the boycotts ... its doing great things for you "movement".
Glad to see the maturity of Slashdot posters on display here.
Honestly, I read his essay and his blog. He makes a very basic pro-marriage case and the only harsh words he has for anyone are reserved for the government:
'What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them.
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.'
He says quite clearly, 'Seen in this context, we are fools if we think "gay marriage" is the first or even the worst threat to marriage.
We heterosexuals have put marriage in such a state that it's a wonder homosexuals would even aspire to call their unions by that name.'
He's quite clearly against adultery, "no-fault" divorce, child abandonment, and cavalier attitudes towards the welfare of children as it relates to marriage. You'd find the same moral reasoning on marriage form anyone in communion with the Vatican, while you'd find the same political reasoning on government abuses by replacing "marriage" with "net neutrality" or "BitTorrent" on a random message board. He says you ought to raise your kids, they deserve a mom and a dad who believe in their marriage, and the government can take a long walk off a short pier if it wants to force people's kids to go to school and indoctrinate them into a definition of "marriage" that he sees as positively Orwellian doublespeak.
That's not a "hateful," "extreme," or "wingnut" position, unless we've truly reached the cusp of newspeak.
Buy used.
There is a name for a majority (a small majority at that) taking away freedoms of a minority: Tyranny of the majority
I love the "The American People" crap that excludes about 40-60% of the voting population (I'm talking the typical social conservative/social liberal split on issues here.)
BTW - Why do so many people want to do "God's" job, is it/he/she/they freakin' incompetent?
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
i thought the flamebait modifier was not for things you merely disagree with.
i cited sources and made reasoned arguments. apparently not something /.ers like to see unless the conclusion is one the herd agrees with.
nice cheap shot moderator.
"If still these truths be held to be
Self evident."
-Edna St. Vincent Millay
Check out the book from a library. You don't give Card any money, and you get to (maybe) enjoy the book.
Of course, that would involve going outside.
That depends upon whether you understand my initial post in this thread.
If it is magic then it does not matter because it will always function EXACTLY as the plot requires it to. Or not function. Or function incorrectly.
And such functioning / non-fuctioning / mis-functioning will be entirely independent of ANY OTHER FACTORS.
... and ...
No. That's the point. It is magic. With a car, people understand the limitations and the writer has to work within those limitations.
With magic, there are no limitations. The magic does whatever the plot requires it to do.
The car might break down. On a deserted road. In the middle of a forest. In a storm. Near an old house. Where a terrible murder happened twenty years ago. And the killer was never caught.
That's covered under "cliche". And cliches are another mark of a bad writer.
When the car crashes into a tree, the writer has to explain WHY it crashed. In a way that is acceptable to the reader (who is probably a driver himself). Not just say that there was a crash and an evil twin of the driver materializes in the passenger seat. And the evil twin can only be destroyed by putting both of them back into the crashed car and driving backwards.
Again, the point is that MAGIC means a lazy writer who is probably going for a light story with a moral (look before you leap) rather than anything more involved. And any writer who tries magic in an involved story will miss aspects that would have rendered the plot moot because the protagonist would have more options open to him than the writer thought of.
Okay, now the question is:
Where can I buy the ebook?
I'm not into paying $25 for a hardcover book. I'm not even into paying $10 for a softback book. I want to pay $5-10 for a DRM-free ebook that I can read on my PDA.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
That depends upon whether you understand my initial post in this thread.
Do you understand the question? You question the parameters of a transporter. How accurate do said limitations need to be before it ceases to be "magic" in your parlance? Because if it has some at least implied limitations, and writers stay mostly within that, then that's just fine writing as far as I care. Sure there are obvious exceptions in Trek to the behavior of transporters (far be it from me to never accuse Trek writers of hackery), but none of them have to do with it transporting ridiculous amounts of material over ridiculous distances and thus violating two of the parameters you mentioned.
If it is magic then it does not matter because it will always function EXACTLY as the plot requires it to. Or not function. Or function incorrectly.
No. Every device will function exactly as the plot requires it to, or not function, or function incorrectly.
And such functioning / non-fuctioning / mis-functioning will be entirely independent of ANY OTHER FACTORS.
You're acting like in a "non-magic" story there's a physics simulation is going on in the author's head, and no matter how much he needs the teapot to boil over at the exact moment the detective knocks on the door, well damn, thermodynamics says it can't yet so it doesn't. Wrong. It will. Other factors be damned. Does that make the teapot "magic"?
No. That's the point. It is magic. With a car, people understand the limitations and the writer has to work within those limitations.
Limitations that they can bend and mold as they see fit on a whim. If they need the car to crash, it will crash. If they need it to leap over a river that it would be physically impossible for it to in real life, it will.
That's covered under "cliche". And cliches are another mark of a bad writer.
I never said this wasn't bad writing, I said it made no difference if it was a "magic" transporter or a car -- plot contrivances are plot contrivances, cliche or not, reality bends to the will of the author.
When the car crashes into a tree, the writer has to explain WHY it crashed. In a way that is acceptable to the reader (who is probably a driver himself). Not just say that there was a crash and an evil twin of the driver materializes in the passenger seat. And the evil twin can only be destroyed by putting both of them back into the crashed car and driving backwards.
So the two sentences of made-up crap written to explain why the car crashed in an extremely unlikely and completely contrived way -- there was a pot hole here, and a loose lug nut here, and heretofore unknown stress fractures in the axle here, which ensured that it would crash into the culvert with the concealed cave entrance where the next step of the plot begins -- is oh so much better than two sentences of made-up crap involving techno-babble? In either case, it's completely contrived reverse-engineering of the outcome the author wanted to happen.
What's the difference? Effort? Some hypothetical but really almost insanely improbably connection to modern-day reality?
Again, the point is that MAGIC means a lazy writer who is probably going for a light story with a moral (look before you leap) rather than anything more involved. And any writer who tries magic in an involved story will miss aspects that would have rendered the plot moot because the protagonist would have more options open to him than the writer thought of.
Again, the point is that plot contrivances don't require magic. They require an author who is more concerned with making what they want to have happen, happen, than in showing a self-consistent world where the characters take reasonable actions, rather than convenient one. Because even in the most realistic of stories, characters have more options open to them than the writer thought of. And the ones that the writer does think of, and which would render the plot moot, don't work for some completely contrived (but because the words used relate to reality in some way, okay?) reason. Plot devices of this nature abound in realistic fiction. MAGIC doesn't enter into it.
The enemies of Democracy are
I could disagree with his views and still read his work. But he bases his entire argument on the rationalization that a marriage is supposed to produce children, gays can't produce children and thus it can't be called a marriage. Right, so why is it I never hear any of these fools wanting to prevent all women who have gone through menopause from marrying? I can respect different views, but I don't buy books written by idiots.
Yes. And I even corrected it.
No. You do not understand.
Because it does not have limits is what makes it magic.
Again, it is magic because it does not have limitations.
If it is needed to transport something further than you have specified, it is done. And it is done because it is magic.
If it needs to have some other function (such as creating a twin of you) then that is done. Again, because it is magic.
Features are added as the plot requires them. It is magic.
Whatever limitations there are are only there because the plot requires them. It is magic.
Previously "established" limitations will be ignored if the plot requires them. It is magic.
> [...] they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.
> In my opinion, this is a more disgusting attack on gay rights than any violent diatrabe could ever be.
So the poor guy finds happiness and you hate the author for it? Okay ...
All this argument about which is the best book from an author that wrote one of the great books on tolerance of differences . . .
But whose public rantings have gone to so much trouble to highlight the fact that he personally holds anyone of differing opinions from his own in contempt.
I'll pass, thanks.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
If you can get past Card's personal beliefs, and want to catch up - or discover - the storyline, and want to save some cash, I got First Meetings in the Enderverse for a buck + tax last week at our local Dollar Store.
Includes the novellas: The Polish Boy, Teacher's Pest, Ender's Game, and The Investment Counselor.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
> A decade later, I would like to change the name, but I don't want to lose the karma and the low UID :-(
I'm glad to see that you haven't lost sight of what's truly important to you.
I read it. Two-dimensional characters and a ridiculously unbelievable twist at the end.
Learning how to game a simulation does NOT win you a war. Gaming a simulation only reveals the weaknesses in the simulation; it has nothing to do with the war.
Standards must have been a whole lot lower for Hugos in those days.
I piss off bigots.
Scott makes the argument that homosexual 'marriages' are a reproductive dead end. They do not perpetuate the species, nor the civilization of the species. In fact, according to Scott, sanctioning same-sex marriages undermines a civilization's ability to perpetuate itself, eventually leading to extinction.
In this respect, Scott seems to view the official institutionalization of same-sex 'marriages' as a mortal threat to civilization. That is, a threat that could wipe out civilization. He does not claim to be a mortal enemy of same-sex unions. He claims that same-sex marriages are a mortal threat to his posterity and to the civilization he desires for his posterity.
He does not seem to advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S.A. He seems to advocate the active withdrawal of support for the "elite" within the U.S.A. (apparently elite being anyone who supports gay marriage). Presumably this would include refusal to join the military, refusal to pay taxes, actively voting against any such perceived elitism, refusal to recognize the authority of a government that recognized the institution of gay marriage.
It is not clear whether Scott advocates violent resistance. He doesn't indicate what he thinks should happen when officials try to jail someone for ignoring the authority of the government.
While Scott seems to think that gays represent a very small part of the population, he doesn't address how much of the population would be unsympathetic to those who withdraw from U.S. society. While he thinks that this segment would be self-defeating, eventually dying off without posterity, he doesn't indicate how long he thinks that would take. He does seem to think that the military would side with the anti-anti-family crowd. Presumably, this wouldn't be to exterminate the anti-family crowd, but rather, to prevent the anti-family crowd from forcing everyone else back into a society they control. This would buy time for the non-reproductive portion of the population to die off, while the "civilized" segment of the species reforms the government.
A technical correction here - Polygamy had been practiced in Judaism, at least as late as King Solomon, but was AFAICT pretty much gone by the time of Jesus, though it was widely practiced by many of the other religions and cultures in the Roman Empire. Christians weren't supposed to marry anyone beyond their first spouse, but already-polygamous converts didn't have to get divorced. On the other hand, you couldn't be a bishop if you had more than one wife.
Celibate priesthood was a later invention, though St. Paul was single and recommended against getting married if you were going to be a missionary, since traveling around getting shipwrecked, imprisoned, run out of town, fed to lions, etc. is no way to treat your wife and kids.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Then you understand nothing.
No, the use of "magic" is not limited to science fiction. But it is very prevalent in science fiction. And science fiction provides the best examples of such outside of pure fantasy.
Yeah, that seems to be your mental block. You refuse to acknowledge that such limitations do not exist.
As I've said, they can be (and are) discarded at any time by the writer for no other reason than he needs to discard them to get himself out of a corner that he's written himself into.
Which is why they are "magic".
Keep arguing that they have limits. Even though they do not.
I have a car. It is not magic. But it is bound by the physical laws. It simply cannot go "farther on a tank of gas than is physically possible".
Now, if a writer includes things that he claims to be "cars" in his plot ... but they violate physics ... then they are magic. Particularly if they tend to make evil twins appear in the passenger seat.
Magic is the absence of limitations. It is when the writer can have it do whatever he wants it to do because the plot requires it.
Look up "cliche". Go ahead. Do it.
No. Magic is when there are no limitations. A transporter can move someone across a room. Or it can move them across a planet. Between planets. Between systems. Between galaxies. It all depends upon what the writer wants the transporter to do.
A transporter can create an evil twin of someone.
There aren't many writers who would have someone's evil twin appear after he's been shot by a gun. Nor would they write about a 45 that could shoot something in orbit. People understand guns and cars. The writers can get away with cliches. But they cannot get away with magic.
You're not quite getting it. My short rule of thumb for things like this is "don't feed pigeons."
Why? Well, pigeons are machines for turning food into crap and more pigeons. The world has plenty of both. Although it can be fun to feed pigeons, I don't do it, because I don't want to contribute to the problems.
Ditto with Card. He's welcome to be a douchebag, but not on my money. Whereas the things you mentioned don't benefit the people you mentioned, so I don't have a problem with people using them.
"I believe an important part of growing up is taking the bigger picture into account, and deciding who and what we support based on more than just our immediate personal result."
You realize, of course, that you're basically making the same argument that the social conservatives you so loathe are making... that there can be no co-existence with the other side, and the only answer is to boycott and blacklist their work.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
It's anything but nuts. Sodomists and perverts want to have their actions not only legitimized by the government by calling things what they are not (a marriage) but subsidized by others' tax money (all the benefits which society gives to real marriages because it's in society's best interest to promote healthy families) and have anyone who voices an opinion that their actions are wrong jailed for "hate speech". A government which steals from the majority to sponsor abominations and decay deserves nothing short of open rebellion.
I have relatives who lived in Massachusetts. When it became apparent that their son, who was approaching school age, would be taught in school a *mandatory curriculum* promoting homosexuality as normal and giving homosexual "couples" as examples of what families are, they decided to move. In Europe, major inroads have been made in curtailing the freedom of speech to fit the will of the homosexual agenda (cf the Åke Green case) and many similar things are happening here in America.
Note that generally when the homosexual agenda has made progress, it has not been through democratic processes or the rule of law. Instead it happens when people like Mayor Newsom flout the law, when corrupt courts take sovereignty out of the hands of the people and decide to make their own legislation, etc. Behind it all you can see the powerful homosexual special-interest groups and how they've had a vastly disproportionate power over American politics for decades. Returning power to the people and bringing communities and states liberty and self-responsibility is definitely worth fighting for.
"And what, exactly, is wrong with not stopping at a union of two, male and female?"
Simple. You and I would not be here but for that unique and special union between male and female. I'm not even going to get into 'loving and committed', because I don't have to. Just because not all parents are responsible, doesn't mean they don't deserve the unique framework that is the formation of a family, and with that goes the special definition. The very entomology of the word, 'marriage' describes a union of opposites.
As for 'rights and responsibilities', I don't have a problem with civil unions, although I'm certain that these too will be abused in the future with wackjobs wanting to marry their cats, furniture, and other atrocities we've already seen glimpses of in Europe. And don't say 'it can't happen here'. 20 years ago the very idea of 'gay marriage', whatever the hell that is, was an affront to society.
And as for their 'legal' right - well, it's not now - at least in California. I guess Connecticut is an option still. When a majority change their minds, perhaps it will be again. Trouble is, with the kind of people you've got in the street and tearing through churches now, that's going to be a hard sell.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
I'm not going to spend hours of my life reading something written by an outspoken bigot.
Your opinion, and an ironic one since in your own bigotry you do yourself a great disservice. The politics of a person can be separated from their writing, and in the case of Card the writing is very good indeed as are the ideas he explores.
Why are you limiting your own growth just because you dislike the producer of a work? I'd not be able to enjoy a great deal of movies or music or all sorts of other things if I felt the same way, and I'd be a poorer and more ignorant person for it.
Furthermore I don't see isolating yourself from opinions of people you disagree with as healthy in the slightest, again because it's so easy to descend into bigotry and demonizing anyone you disagree with.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yes, the quote is in the Mormon Times article. However, the quote in the Examiner omits an important contextual sentence. Here's the full quote:
Omitting the "How long before..." sentence implies that Card is directly stating "...any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy." instead of the actual statement which is Card wondering how long before married people (traditional marriage) may perhaps feel and/or state such a thing.
Context is always important with quotes.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hey, that can backfire -- I had to endure widespread shame and ridicule after innocently reading 'Empire' on a bookstore couch.
You have a strange definition of overwhelming. In CA, prop 8 passed with 52%. That is called barely making it, not overwhelming. It's actually even worse than that. According to the CA Secretary of state, only 72% of eligible voters actually voted. That means that the CA constitution was actually altered for *everyone* by only 52% of 72% = 37.44% of actual eligible voters. That's very, very far from overwhelming.
The whole idea of amending a constitution with only a simple majority of cast votes is a crock. Note, that is not a simple majority of the electorate, just a simple majority of votes cast in a single election. If only three people voted, two would be enough to change the constitution for all. Pretty scary, really. Such a process begs to be abused.
That is one reason the founding fathers weren't stupid when they required 2/3 of both houses of Congress to pass an amendment, not just 2/3 of those who actually vote. Also, its 3/4 of *all* the states, not just 3/4 of those who vote. Any non-vote is considered the same as No.
Changing constitutions should be *hard* and require by-in by at at least a super-majority of *eligible voters*. If you can't get that many to turn out for an amendment, it doesn't rate passing. Like the US constitution, an absent vote should equal No (not just Prop 8 either, it doesn't matter what the subject matter is)
Oh yeah, ban all bumperstickers...
You can have my "For the Horde!" bumper sticker when you pry it from my cold undead mage's hands :-p.
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Whether Adam & Steve down the street can marry does not affect me. Whether Comcast can pick and choose which packets of mine get through in a timely fashion does. Big difference.
-Ted
If you read what the man wrote, he agrees with you.
'Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like. '
His complaint is with the Government abusing its power, specifically in taking children by force and placing them into state "education" facilities where they are indoctrinated with the teaching that what "Adam & Steve" are doing down the street is right, good, and sociologically and morally interchangeable with a "traditional" marriage.
Case in point: School takes 1st-graders to see lesbian teacher wed
And that's not even scratching the surface of the Constitutional violation of Equal Protection that comes up every time the State extends a Privilege (marriage license, driver's license, fishing permit, cash payment, whatever) without requiring those that receive the Privilege to have provided a Public Benefit related to said Privilege.
- Marty Lund
Troll Zoo member Lemmy Caution thinks everything sucks.
My favorite part of this is when Ender goes on an insane rant about how much he hates Jews.
Celibate priesthood was a later invention, though St. Paul was single and recommended against getting married if you were going to be a missionary, since traveling around getting shipwrecked, imprisoned, run out of town, fed to lions, etc. is no way to treat your wife and kids.
Yeah, but he was a homo.
Don't like Card's politics but like the Ender universe. Buy the book used, preferably from a local bookstore.
You actually have it reversed a little bit: the Romans were strictly monogamous, and introduced monogamy (and ritual virginity for the priesthood) to early Christianity.