From: as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Scorpii)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.drwho
Subject: Re: Drewcifer Returns
Date: 22 Jan 93 18:24:26 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <1jou3tINNd5r@controversy.math.lsa.umich.edu> kausch@med.umich.edu (David Kausch) writes:


>In article <1993Jan19.180157.23856@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Scorpii) writes:

>|> >|> >|> 	Greetings to you all; reread ENDER'S GAME.

>As to the depth of the characters Drewcifer writes:

>|> I'll agree that they're MUCH larger than life...

>Spoilers























>Much larger than life?  In what respect? The life of  a 13 year old Nintendo
>freak?  I agree that the IDEA is supposed to be that Ender is so brilliant
>and so talented and most importantly so unafraid to use his abilities to the
>max, however why does he feel it necessary to kill anyone who teases him?  Is

No no no no no no.  Come on, at what depth did you read this book?  When I
was 12 or 13 that may have confused me, but the point is all too clear to
anyone with a smidgen of sense.

Ender is a brilliant kid, yes.  Whence this "unafraid to use..." crap?  The
IDEA has to do with the fact that Ender does not WANT to kill ANYONE.  He
does what circumstances necessitate.  I wouldn't call death threats and a
gang of marauding thugs "teasing", either.  The idea is that he's damn good,
and he's good with strategy.  He didn't know he'd killed either boy, and
didn't want to.  Did you skip the parts where he went and cried?  Didn't you
understand that in doing what he was supposedly destined to do, he had to
become what he hated and feared most: his brother, a killer?  This was the
central irony: that war can use a genius for murderous purposes.  He had the
killer instinct in him, but were it not for the war that might never have
developed, and he didn't want it to.

>that the behavior of an "epic-hero" or the behavior of a cry-baby with weapons?

What the hell are you on about?  He was half the size of his opponents and
outnumbered to boot.  All the fights were forced on him.  I think you need
to reread the book before you make silly statements like the above.

>Also, when he's playing the computer game where he drinks with the giant
>(forgive me for laking specifics, I read the book almost 3 years ago) and he
>jumps into the giant's eye why are we supposed to be so astonished?  As the

Because it's his last resort.  He wants to escape without violence, cannot,
and so must commit a savage act.  We aren't supposed to be astonished, but
saddened that the game is channeling his personality in this direction.

>story describes this he is the only one who ever tried this tactic and the
>only one who ever got beyond that part of the program.  Come on!  How many
>people do you know who play computer games at length and play by the rules

There were no rules.  It was a psychological, open-ended game.

>ALL the time?  If O.S. Card had wanted to illustrate the CREDIBILITY of his
>character with this scene, why did he choose something so trivial for his
>"great" Ender? 

This scene had nothing to do with Ender's credibility.  He didn't need to
illustrate any such thing in the first place.  Card's purpose in writing
Ender's Game, believe it or not, was not to prove that such a person could
exist to people like you, but to make points about psychology and sociology. 
He didn't say "Ender was real, really," he said "here's a character, Ender
Wiggin--watch him and see what you can learn."  That's the way almost all
literature works.

>|> ...and that is, in fact, the
>|> point, which you seem to have missed.  The story resembles an epic poem in
>|> that respect.  
>|> 
>|> Drewcifer
>|> -- 
>|> ***************************************************************************
>|> ** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
>|> ***************************************************************************
>|> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu

>No, I don't believe I missed the point.  You are quite right, the story 
>resembles an epic poem.  About as much as "Dune".
>...but let's not get side-tracked.

Not if you're going to criticize "Dune" as well.  That novel also possesses
a wholly remarkable larger-than-life character who exists to make thematic
points.  Do you always read to believe?  If so, I feel sorry for you; you
will glean little more than entertainment from your literary activities.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say here?  I'm willing to continue this
discussion as long as it takes for you to understand that you're reading the
book the wrong way.

>p. de terre 

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu