# Talk:Ender's Game

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nkw8889. Peer reviewers: Nkw8889.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The L.A. Times, IMDB and other websites said the movie was scrapped a long time ago. I think this needs to be updated.Unopeneddoor (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article states that the movie script was completed in 2003. I am trying to find a source for this, which will be difficult, but I know that as early as 1998 that there had been at least one draft of a movie script that Orson Scott Card had. Secondhand knowledge isn't wiki-material but I grew up in Greensboro, NC where OSC lives and has much of his family, and I know that one of his nephews that I went to school with was very excited about a movie that was being made, with a completed script, and they were talking about casting of it. This was in 1998. I'm only putting this out there, because perhaps someone has some solid information or links regarding earlier scrapped scripts and productions. Personally hoping that they make this movie as dark as they should, and not some StarWars I mushy thing. It's a very sad ending obviously, and should not end on a high note. 71.174.183.251 04:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)DavidFisher

How is it a sad ending? He was pushed way beyond his limits and triumphed over a totally superior race. While he didn't know that he was commiting mass murder (not technically xenocide) he still attemps to atone for his guilt giving it a more hopeful ending than anything else. Kaoskaix 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is a sad ending that pursists throughout the rest of the quartet, but if the rest of the books are not made into movies, I don't think they can make the ending extremly saddening or it will drive people away like so many people were driven away from the rest of the books.  --Jln Dlphk (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the plot for this page has been characterized as too long. How about this:
The book takes place somewhere in the near-distant future of Earth. Mankind has made contact with an insectoid alien race known to humanity as the Formics, of colloquially as "Buggers." The buggers have attempted to invade earth twice, having been narrowly defeated the first time by a man named Mazer Rackham, and the threat of the third bugger invasion looms large over the earth.
Enter Ender Wiggin, a six-year-old boy and third son of his parents, an audacity under the population restriction laws, permitted only by special sanction by the government who is seeking the next brilliant military commander. Young Ender is approved by the government for training at the elite Battle School, a space station where children train in armies commanded by older children in mock 40-on-40 battles. Ender chooses to accept the government's offer, leaving behind his parents, his sister Valentine whom he deeply cares for, and his sadistic and manipulative older brother Peter.
Upon arrival at Battle School, Ender is immediately singled out by the administration and kept at arm's length from the camaraderie of the students there. He moves quickly from army to army, annoying many of his commanders with his brilliance which serves to reflect their inadequacy, and he quickly becomes the top-ranking soldier in school. Ender finds a way around the teacher's psychological segregation of him by forming his own nightly "practice" sessions, instructing anyone who wishes to come in zero-gravity battle simulations, teaching other students battle strategy and tactics regardless of their given army alliance.
Meanwhile, Ender is participating off and on in a fantasy video game created by the administration to monitor their students psychologically. Ender progresses farther than any student before, and the computer struggles to come up with images to show Ender as he goes beyond the programming of the game. Ender acts out scenes of gruesome violence and ultimately compassion as he struggles with the images the computer is creating for him. Eventually, the images become too gruesome and unbearable for him, and he refuses to play any longer.
Back on Earth, Ender's brother and sister have begun trying their hand at popular politics, assuming the virtual identities of Locke and Demosthenes. The latter, written by Valentine is a hot-headed rabble-rouser who stirs up discontent and whose main purpose is to provide a counterpoint to Peter's Locke identity, whom Peter is using to gain real power and influence over the world stage.
Ender is quickly promoted to commander of a brand new army, and he molds these young soldiers into an unbeaten team, despite the teachers stacking every game against him. Some time after an especially brutal victory against one of Ender's former commanders, Bonzo Madrid, Ender is cornered in the shower by Bonzo along with a few of Bonzo's soldiers. Unable to escape the situation without violence, Ender convinces Bonzo to fight him alone and Ender defeats him soundly. As Bonzo's unmoving body lies on the shower floor, the school administration comes in and takes Ender from the shower directly to a shuttle for command school after a brief stop on Earth to visit his sister Valentine.
Ender is taught at command school by Mazer Rackham, kept alive into his own future by sending him away at near lightspeed and then turning around and bringing him back at near lightspeed. Mazer instructs Ender in a game very similar to the Battle room, only this time instead of commanding soldiers, Ender will command ships in a 3-d space battle. Mazer puts Ender through a grueling pace of games, followed by critiques and then more games. At this point, Ender is reunited with the closest people to him from battle school as his subordinates in this battle game. Ender commands them directly, and it is up to them to carry out his commands. Ender is told that from now on, he will play against Mazer directly, and that it is these tests that will determine if he is ready to command the fleet that Earth is sending against the Bugger threat. There is a new weapon Ender is given in these tests- The Molecular Disruption Device or MD Device. It is an energy ray which causes solid matter to deconstruct itself down to the molecular level, and that deconstruction causes a sphere of energy to expand around the target. Any additional matter caught in this sphere is drawn into the process and chain reactions to additional matter around it. Ender finds this weapon particularly useful against closely-grouped fighters, but much less effective once Mazer learns to keep his ships separated. 
Each day the games become more and more grueling, and Ender is slowly being worn down to psychosis. Mazer confronts Ender, telling him that he will face a final exam, a simulation involving the bugger homeworld. The game begins, and Ender is outnumbered 1,000 to 1. His commanders express hesitancy at their odds and Ender, tired and angry at this unwinninable situation, comes up with a desperate plan. He forms his ships into a tight-knit group and sends them directly at the planet. When they are finally in range, Ender orders the use of the MD Device against the plant itself, destroying the simulated planet and all ships in orbit. Ender consciously makes this decision knowing that it is expressly against the respectable rules of war, thinking that his teachers will find his ruthlessness unacceptable and remove him from command.
Ender removes himself from the simulator after the game and finds that everyone in the room is rejoicing. It is revealed to Ender that every battle he has been fighting against Mazer was actually a real battle taking place in bugger space. The military sent ships at the bugger planets many years ago, and outfitted them with borrowed bugger technology, making instantaneous communication possible. Ender realizes that he just ordered the actual destruction of an entire race, and the guilt of those lives forces him into a four-day coma.
When he awakens, its revealed to him that Ender is being heralded as the saviour of the human race, and now that the bugger threat has been eliminated, mankind is expanding into the empty bugger planets and repealing the population laws. Valentine arrives at command school and convinces Ender to go with her on the first ship leaving for colonization. When they arrive on the bugger world, Ender finds a large constructed statue resembling images he saw in the fantasy game. As he walks through a cave nearby he discovers a single cocoon, the last unborn bugger queen. He resolves to atone for his destruction by finding a place to resurrect this bugger queen, bringing the alien life back into existence. The unborn queen shares a psychic link with Ender, and she is able to communicate that they didn't understand that humans were sentient creatures, and their defeat during the Second Invasion forced them to realize humanity's true nature, and they had resolved to never attack Earth again. Ender writes of the compassion and pain of the bugger race and titles his book The Hive Queen (which later becomes The Hive Queen and the Hegemon), and signs it "Speaker for the Dead." HolyMadjai 20:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced this summary into the page. HolyMadjai 20:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized at least twice, most recently on 1/31/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ice Inside (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 January 2007

You'll find that's not too unusual for most articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for correcting the problem, however! -- Antepenultimate 20:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Who did the damn halo vandalism to the opening bit of the plot?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.187.244 (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 

Why isn't there a article on the last book? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.160.129.109 (talk) 

Children of the Mind QueenStupid 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I just spent some time completing and tweaking the infobox - any edition-specific information now reflects the first edition (as is preffered). I also replaced the image - actually reverting it back to what it was before, apparently, at least according to the image's previous edit summary and caption here. It appears somebody went in for some reason and replaced what was the first hardback edition image (preffered) with some random later edition paperback - and then failed to change the caption, still claiming it to be the first edition. Also, the image was completely unsourced and technically in danger of being deleted at any time anyway. I've fixed all that.
I've also moved the "plot warning" template to the top of the page, as it is worded to be placed as such if need be. It was causing quite an ugly whitespace gap (especially after I expanded the infobox). Really, I'm not sure if that warning is totally justified (the summary is a tad long, but looks to be well written and this is a fairly important novel), but I don't think that's for me to decide. -- Antepenultimate 00:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I would want the plot warning.  The summary is a spoiler.  Una Smith 22:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags should not be included in sections covering plot summaries, according to WP:SPOIL.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For references, are we allowed to cite the book the article's about? --Cheeesemonger 13:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Apparently we are. It would be nice if someone who had the book would do that. I just have it on tape. --Cheeesemonger 13:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I have a question. In Ender's Game on page 117(chapter 8 towards the end) it talks about Bonzo's misuse of Ender and how all the other armies had learned that getting out of their gate as fast as possible was the best idea. But, wasn't it Rose De Nose who ordered Ender to instantly come out of the gate on page 105 so wasn't it supposed to be Rose's mistake not Bonzo's on page 117?
This page is technically discussing the article about the book, not the book itself. (But a lot of the fan sites think that this passage was a mistake. :-D) --Cheeesemonger 18:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that this article has been categorized as "Portrayals of Mormons in Popular Media". Now I know Orson Scott Card is himself a Mormon, but beyond that, I don't remember anything having to do with Mormonism in this novel, but it's been a very long time since I read it. Can anybody shed some light on this? If the only connection to Mormonism is the religious orientation of the author, I don't think this article should be included in that category. Thanks -- Antepenultimate 17:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ender's parents disobeyed the state by having more than two children.  I gather that having many children is an important aspect of this religion.  Ender's family seems Mormon in other respects as well, although this is not stated explicitly.  (Why borrow trouble?)  See also Speaker for the Dead. Una Smith 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is said that Ender's mother, Theresa Wiggin, is Mormon and his father, John Paul Wiggin is a Roman Catholic. Ausir 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The father's catholicism is made explicitly clear in the prequels, but I cannot remember it being stated anywhere that his mother is a mormon. Raul654 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't it stated in Teacher's Pest? Ausir 08:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the book states that his parents are ordered by the State to have another child (Ender) because their two previous children were close to what they wanted, but not close enough. You may have felt this was them breaking the law because the book also states that having more than two children is considered wrong and innapropriate due to the law and population control.

Ender's parents were indeed ordered by the state to have a "third". Further, it is briefly mentioned in this book that both his Catholic father and Mormon mother renounced their respective religions, because they were ashamed that their families were "non-compliant" (had more than two children). One character states as fact that the feelings Ender's parents have towards their respective religions are ambiguous, despite the fact that they both refuse to admit where they were born (Poland and Utah), lest people suspect their family to be non-compliant. So, one character in this book is mentioned to come from a Mormon family, but hides that fact for fear of persecution. While not a central theme to the book, I imagine it has some significance to Mormons. I'd suggest that that would qualify as Mormon depiction.  Temple 10:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a point of trivia rather than a significant factor in the book.  I really don't think Ender's grandparents being Mormon merits inclusion in the category.  (In contrast to many of OSC's other books.) Scott.wheeler 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes - I found it odd that this article has the Mormonism WikiProject at the top.  I can understand Card's article, but why this book.  It has nothing to do with the religion. Morphh  (talk) 2:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it’s important, enders parents religious beliefs are the driving force behind his parents allowing themselves to let him go, and also speaks to enders own detachment from his parents. His mother Mormon, his father catholic; both are running from non-compliant families. However, deep down both find shame in their unwillingness to embrace their heritage and have large families. Then the government asks them to have a ‘third’, ender. They see ender as a way to circumvent non-compliance but in the end they discover that ender is not an act of faith in their religions, but a further act of compliance with their government as well as way to ease their own minds, but nothing more. So ender himself feels distant from his parents, who hold him at arm’s length because he has become a symbol of the fact that they dare not practice their religion the way they want. Ender, in turn, does not bond well with them, instead choosing to bond with Valentine. Therefore, his mother being Mormon is the largest driving force to ender choosing to go to battle school and is in fact very important to the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.170.25 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section isn't really explicitly criticism, it's merely stating a fact about the book. Unless you consider "moralistic" to be intrinsically a criticism... I'm going to remove it for now, though it probably deserves its own section eventually, describing the "Moral Philosophy" of the book. Timbatron 16:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the essay by Elaine Radford, which appeared in Fantasy Review in 1987 ... she argued that Ender's Game was an apologia for Adolf Hitler, and noted several parallels between the character's and the dictator's lives.[1][2][3]Steve 13:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The "criticism" that existed on the page until today was a one-sentence uncited remark from some user about parents reading the book first.  That may or may not be good advice (certainly reasonable people will disagree), but it's not the type of specific criticism that would belong on a Wikipedia article - otherwise, I suppose we can go out and add the same "criticism" to about 300,000 other books... BlackberryLaw 17:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else think that the critical response section is a little weak?  I bring this up because the section begins with the factual statement that the novel won two of the most "prestigious" sci-fi awards, the Hugo and the Nebula, and then the section proceeds to say that the novel has a boring context and that it attempts to justify Adolph Hitler.  Seeing as Ender's Game is one of the most celebrated, and read, sci-fi novels of all time, it seems that maybe it would be wise to have a balance between the negative AND positive critical response.  By that I mean, maybe there should be SOME positive elements of the critical response section other than a brief mention of the some awards it has won.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.233.236 (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC) 

I agree that the criticism section is damn horrible. It's quite obvious that the 3 people quoted have not seen the end of the film or read the end of the book, and instead of offering a nuanced commentary, just trot out the tired old neoliberal talking points of comparing everyone and everything to Hitler and colonialism. I might add that the inclusion of these people's drivel instead of commentary with at least some thought put into it reflects badly on the editor that wrote this section and on the Wikipedia admins for obviously not allowing it to be overwritten. 193.116.96.183 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
By responding in the middle of an 11 year old comment section without indenting, you were making it less likely anyone would see your comment. I indented it to partially correct this. After such a long gap, a new section probably would have made sense.
In any case, critical response in Wikipedia is not a matter of whether or not you agree with the critics or not. Whether the critics are "neoliberals" or reactionaries is also irrelevant. The individuals quoted in the section are relevant. In particular, the Hitler comparison -- whether you agree with it or not -- is clearly relevant as the author saw fit to respond to it specifically.
Yes, it is likely the critics did not see the end of the film. They were reviewing the 1985 novel, not the film from more than a quarter century later.
Finally, rewriting the section is unlikely to be a matter of "admins...obviously not allowing it to be overwritten". ANYONE (who is not subject to a a block or ban) can edit Wikipedia.
If you think there is material that should be added, add it (be sure to cite reliable sources). If you think some of the material does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, remove it. If another editor disagrees, they'll revert you and you'll need to discuss the issues here. Or, you can discuss specific changes before making them. Admins tend to get involved only when rules are repeatedly broken (edit warring, plagerism, personal attacks and such). - SummerPhDv2.0 16:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone else notice that the "critical" portion of the Jonas quote is taken out of context? He doesn't criticize Ender's Game as "Grade-Z," he simply admits that the plot summary sounds Grade Z, and then says, "but...". So some re-wording is in order. I'll do that. Razzendahcuben (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Mention could also be made of Norman Spinrad's criticism of the novel, which can be found in his book "Science Fiction in the Real World". He brings up the same basic issues as Radford and Kessel, and also remarks upon the novel's reliance on a generic "plot skeleton" which he thinks weakens the story. It's a very good article.--Pooneil (talk) 21:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I am going to remove the reference to the "Ender Will Save Us All" song, as that song really has nothing to do with the book (apparently it was named this way due to the lead singer's name being Ender). Thoughts? enderminh 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
whether or not the reference is intentional, it is a fair bit of trivia if nothing else.
someone should just ask him-_-
142.167.237.127 00:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
The song is referencing the fact that the lead singer (whose name is not Ender) gave a copy of Ender's Game to a friend of his, and it rekindled their dying friendship. HolyMadjai 21:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe this book deserves more detailed translations section with translated titels and (if needed) round-trip translations, as it was done for Terry Pratchet's books, for example ("Soul Music", "Sourcery", etc.) This is important information for the book which was translated in so many languages. Verdi1 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you also add in the translation for the Russian title? Pnkrockr 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I did it (it is a literal translation) Verdi1 16:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Scratch the merger -- the information is already contained elsewhere. I've shifted the other article to a speedy delete request. --Mhking 02:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing an edit war before one starts, spoiler tags should not be included in sections covering plot summaries, according to WP:SPOIL.  Pnkrockr 14:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The spoiler tage screws up the page layout. I tried fixing it but I reverted it since I only made it worse.--Cadet hastings 15:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A lot of things not revealed until the very end, are revealed here.  Glad I finished reading the book before reading this page.  Someone who knows how to add a spoiler tag properly, should stick one in. Do you normally give out the ending of a book for Wikipedia pages?  Are there any rules about that?  Does it kind of ruin it for anyone that might want to know about the book, to decide whether to read it or not? Dream Focus (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Spoiler tags should not be included in sections covering plot summaries, according to WP:SPOIL.Pmcalduff (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored in any way, including spoilers. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070419s.php

The game that ender plays in the game room is currently described in this article.  It is currently said that he stops because the images become too gruesome, but in the actual story it seems to be that he stops because he finally wins (Valentine is with him, even though the other faces are Peter).  Thoughts? PeEll 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree.  In the book he quits at times for various reasons, but always got started again, until finally defeating it, overcoming his fear of Peter.  That should be changed. Dream Focus (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to imply that he writes The Hive Queen after The Hegemon. I seem to recall that the only reason he initially wrote The Hegemon is because Peter read The Hive Queen, understood immediately that Ender had written it, and then asked Ender to write his story too. If I've gotten this wrong please correct me, otherwise someone should fix the article. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just finished it last night, so hopefully I now what I'm talking about :) I understood that he first wrote The Hive Queen because he felt emotional about the Hive Queen's death, and he was very close to the queen (which came about through his destruction of her, and the thoughts she gave him) Then he wrote The Hegemon later, because he felt emotional about Peter's death, and he was very close to Peter. I wouldn't say that one brought about the other, they're completely separate events. 88.7.76.21 (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I believe it was clarified in Shadow of the Giant.  "And so Peter had written to Valentine, congratulating her, but also asking her to invite Ender to write about him." He wanted a truthful account written after reading "The Hive Queen." ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In the impact segment, it has recently been added that Card noticed similarities in the Harry Potter series to Ender's Game.  But if you actually read the article, it is easy to see that he is Lampooning Rowling for what he sees as a childish lawsuit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.178.204 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 

"When he awakens, it's revealed to Ender that he is being heralded as the savior of the human race, and that the bugger threat has been eliminated, mankind is expanding into the empty bugger planets and repealing the population limit laws."The bold part is wrong - he learned that immediately after the battle ended. Would anyone like to correct this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

It actually is true, to Earth in general.  The bugger "threat" had been eliminated.  It's also true in the sense that he's being "heralded as the savior of the human race."  Humans believe him to be, whether it's true or not. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My copy says copyright 1977,1985,1991 at the start, but the article says 1985. What gives? Was it published in 77 or 85 originally? Kayamon (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The copyright date begins with the copyright of the short story, but the actual novel was published in 1985. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
...and the "Author's definitive version", which apparently you have, was published in 1991, with some rewrites and corrections, iirc. 76.209.53.55 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a section about the differences between the novel and the short story?  They are actually rather significant. 76.232.8.46 (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Adaptations" sections starts with a short summary - "Ender's Game has been successfully adapted into two separate comic book series and will soon be adapted into a video game. A film was planned, but has been canceled."This is redundant since the full info is a few lines below. What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is slightly redundant, but the prose is there to introduce the subsections below.  Does it really harm the article to be there?  Malinaccier (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the title "Ender's Game" refers to both the short story and the novel, and the novel spun off of the short story, they should be merged into one article.  The short story does not appear to be so significantly different from the novel to justify a separate article.  Plus, it would make for a more comprehensive article if the two were combined.  —GodhevalT C H 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the short story is notable enough for itself. A merger is not necessary in my opinion. Malinaccier (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree, these should be kept separate. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree as well.  I'm removing the tags. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A summary of the plot is a nice thing to have for people wishing to read about what the book is about.  But adding the entire ending in there is completely out of place especially with no indication that the book's major climax is about to be ruined.
64.72.65.146 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SPOILER, this is an encyclopedia, and people should reasonably expect all information on the plot to be included, not just the unspoily bits. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

http://xkcd.com/635. Should it be added? --79.151.66.48 (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd that there is no section about the book's treatment of concepts of religion — I'm not calling for original research, understand, just saying surely there's some already out there in verified and reliable sources already. I'm speaking not only of the references to the Catholicism of Ender's father and apparent Mormonism of his mother, but also Alai's religion and the religion that springs up at the very end, when people begin to adopt the custom of a Speaker for the Dead, where the book says that on Earth it was one religion among many, but in the colonies it was THE religion. Lawikitejana (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added something about how the U.S. Marines use this book in leadership training.  But should it go in "Critical Reception"?  That seems oddly inappropriate.  But where, then?  Do you make a whole new section just for this?  What would you call it?  "Ender's Game in Action"?  Anyway, the actual military uses for any war novel always seem well worth mentioning, I just don't know where. Yakushima (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice addition. I think it fits fine in with the contents of the "Critical Response" section, but I agree that the section title doesn't quite fit. I would suggest that we leave it there, but that if anyone can come up with a better name that we rename the section. Princess Lirin (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Though it would break up paragraphs, I think that it should go under its own heading. It is not really reception at all; maybe title the section "Use by the US military"? かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 22:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I think "Critical Response" should be re-labeled "Critique and Reception". Then this should be done uniformly across all of wiki. Tboatner (talk) 11:08, 05 December 2013 (UTC)
Before you take this section out have a look at The Valour and the Horror. The episode "Death by moonlight: Bomber Command" discusses WW2 Air War over Europe under Air Marshall Harris. From memory, paraphrasing, one anecdote - the air marshall was driving home one night from the base very fast. A Bobby(Constable) Stopped him. The officer said "... Sir did you know that driving that fast at night you could have killed someone!!...". Harris replied "....My dear man, I kill thousands of people every day...".
There is also some parallel with not only battle commanders, but Weapons engineers who design these horrifying weapons out of necessity?
Pete318 (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the audiobook, Card mentions that he plays the voice of one of the actors (as a cameo), anyone know who's voice he plays?

A Joystiq article on Dec 14, 2010 had some quotes from the developers for the game saying they won't be continuing to develop "Battle Room".  This is already reflected in the "Ender's Game: Battle Room" wikipedia article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ender's_Game:_Battle_Room
Joystiq Article:
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/12/14/enders-game-tabled-by-chair/
I'd do the edit, but I'm not sure on best practices for discussing the topic of a game adaptation of a book that was announced and then un-announced :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.192.23 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC) 

Since I don't know who are predominantly the creative producers, who are the physical producers, and who are the financial producers, I've ventured the guess that K/O are in the 1st category and Odd Lot, the last.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

(replacing the book's Maj. Anderson)?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The media has severely muddied this incident, and wikipedia is now reflecting that same confusion.  I spent quite a bit of time trying to make sense of it, because the actual complaint has so little relation to what's been reported.  Here's a summation, including references:

Teacher read from three books.
Student misunderstood something. (More on that in a minute.)
Parent complained that child was read online pornography about prostitutes having their faces covered with ejaculate.  (As reported here:  http://www.wrdw.com/home/headlines/Student_claims_Aiken_Co_middle_school_teacher_read_explicit_material_to_class_142658256.html.  There is also a link to the actual police report here: http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/SchofieldSchool-PornInvestigation.pdf)
School releases a statement (http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/031512-school-board-releases-statement-to-enders-game-book) about how a teacher read from three unapproved sources, following which there was a complaint regarding pornography, and they were looking into it.
Although the press release itself names none of the three books, it is somehow revealed that Ender's Game is one of them.
Internet and media goes nuts defending Ender's Game.
Teacher is eventually cleared of all wrong doing, given paid leave, and reinstated. (http://www.aikenstandard.com/story/0329-schofield-teacher-reinstated--3896149)
At no point did the mother or the school actually state that Ender's Game was pornographic.  Those who have looked at all three of the books think that the problem was probably a misunderstanding related to one of the other books under investigation.  "The Devil's Paintbox" mentions prostitutes who have small pox on their faces, and small pox is euphemistically called "devil's paint".  It wouldn't be hard to think it was a euphemism for something else.
So if it's actually worth reporting, could we change the existing text to report the facts and not the spin?  Something like:

In March 2012, in conjunction with a complaint about pornography, a middle school teacher in South Carolina was placed on administrative leave for reading from three unapproved texts. [With a reference to the press release.]  When it was later revealed that one of the books under review was Ender's Game, articles defending the book immediately appeared on sites ranging from Forbes to io9 (again with references). Both the school and the police eventually found the accusations to be unfounded, and the teacher reinstated (reference). Comprehending reader (talk).  23:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
My opinion is that this incident is too insignificant to be included on the page for this novel.   It says more about a particular school in SC, than about the book.  I would like to remove this section altogether.  Opinions?--345Kai (talk) 05:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur. I didn't even hear about this event until reading about it here in this discussion. It might've been news around SC, but certainly not nationally. I don't think it has lasting impact on the book; shouldn't be in article. But kudos to Comprehending reader for such great research and a summary of the events. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the section. Incident doesn't seem sufficiently notable, and even if it is, the connection with the article subject is apparently so tenuous that this wouldn't be the right place for it. And I'd like to echo the praise for Comprehending reader for the thorough research! - 2.211.183.161 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the book, the students at the Battle school use various technologies such as the Skip drive, the Dr. Device (used to destroy the Formic home planet), and ansible.  Should those be mentioned in their own section?

I know that Formic is the predominant term in later books, but the word is not used once in this book (nor its first three sequels). So it seems exceptionally odd to me that the plot synopsis for this particular book uses the term Formic. The plot synopsis should be consistent with this particular book and make sense to a person who has read this book and only this book. Therefore, I propose changing the second sentence to something like this: "In doing so, they encountered an alien race known as the buggers, named after their insect-like appearance, (and known in later books as the Formics) who were scouting the system and establishing a forward base in the asteroid Eros." And then changing all subsequent references to "bugger." Does anyone object? —Jeferman (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree - and done.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The plot of this article is far too long. I agree in terms of fundamental scifi works it is important, but the plot is not that complicated and we don't need to explain every facet and present it exactly as given in the book. Plot summaries are supposed to be precise, and probably shouldn;t be much more over 700 words. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand that some people want the plot to remain simplistically short, but there are several places where the plot is factually incorrect and misleading.  I think an encyclopedia deserves correct information.  How about someone changes the synopsis so that it actually reflects the story.  I can't agree that brevity is preferable over accuracy.--24.22.127.213 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Details on factual errors:  
1. The word "Formic" does not appear in the novel.
2. The word "Jeesh" does not appear in the novel.
3. Hyrum Graff is not the IF Commander nor is he a Commander in the IF.  He is a Colonel.
4. The word "cadet" does not appear in the novel.
5. The army that Graff promotes Ender to is not composed of the Newest and Youngest cadets.  It has 30 soldiers just advanced from Launch Groups (ie new and young) and 10 junior veterans who were under valued and mostly unknown in their other armies.
6. Bonzo did not die later from his wounds.  He was killed in the shower.
7. The egg and the queen are the same entity.  The plot makes it seem like they are two separate entities. 
8. A couple of grammar issues.
--24.22.127.213 (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

In terms of writing summaries, we write from an out-of-universe manner. So even if the word "Formic" or "Jeesh" isn't used in the book, we know that's the name of the species and the group of students from later books, and thus fair to call them that. I do note that while Bonzo did die in the shower, Ender is not told that until later (per end of text of "Bonzo" chapter) so that is correct. The egg contains the queen, so they aren't the same thing. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Given the recent release of a movie of this novel, and changes in techology, it seems that criticisms could be more clearly broken out over time. Comments? Neutralphrasing (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to add the section of the book, at the beginning of one of the books, in which Ender is speaking to Jane (Ender's Game) the computer, and it talks about how Jane has all of the knowledge that has ever been created.  Does anyone know which book in the series that this is in? I know it is not enders game - and the plots of the series books do not mention it. Igottheconch (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Lubie placki  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.89.2 (talk) 10:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ender's Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426200920/http://nonstop-press.com/?p=2439 to http://nonstop-press.com/?p=2439
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ender's Game. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227053817/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103034223/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Hugo.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081227053817/http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm to http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ender's Game (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 19:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is "suggested reading" italicized in the opening section of this article? This is the closest justification I could imagine for it and it still doesn't quite seem right to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Emphasis  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.253.54 (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC) 

I believe Ender realized he had attempted Xenocide of the Formics rather then Genocide. Just a suggested correction.
12.32.73.34 (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

For WP's purposes, "xenocide" is not a real word (though obviously from using word basis and suffixes, its meaning is clear), while "genocide" is still a correct English word. --Masem (t) 23:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

DeclanWIKI123 believes that the formics should be referred to as buggers in this article, but the article of one of the wikilinks they changed to bugger (Ender's Game (novel series)) says that the proper name is formic and that bugger is only colloquial. I have read this book but I don't have a copy on hand. Can anyone verify that formic is not given as the proper name in this particular book in the series? —DIYeditor (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

As per the characters section - The term "Formic" is derived from formica, the Latin word for ant; whereas "bugger" is a pejorative used by humans; yet it was not until 1999's Ender's Shadow that the term 'Formic' was first used, interchangeably with 'Bugger'. Later books used 'Formic' almost exclusively, as the more 'scientific' term. This leads to odd scenarios in the continuity of the books, such as Valentine referring to them as "Buggers" in Ender's Game, chronologically next as "Formics" in Ender in Exile, and again as "Buggers" in Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. The feature film adaptation of Ender's Game uses "Formics" exclusively.
From this section (which is sourced in the original) I would take it that even though not used in the original Ender's Game, the term "Formic" is correct, and should be used in the article.  "Buggers" is also correct, but a pejorative term, not their scientific name, as such.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
"Bugger" is a really rude term in British English. That is probably why Card shifted to using "formic" in the later books. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
As an American writer I doubt that Card either knew or cared about the meaning of the word "bugger" elsewhere in the world.  Also, as stated by the article bugger - it's not a really rude term in British English either.  My e-version of Ender's game contains "Shit" 3 times, "Damn" 10 times and "ass" 10 times, as well as the amusing fart variations of:
Fart-head
Fart-mouth
"You gold-plated fart"
"I want to see your fart collection"
With writing like that, I can see why it won the 1985 Nebula Award for best novel...
There's also the enlightened conversation between Ender and Alai:
Ender said, "Better invite Bernard."
Alai cocked an eyebrow. "Oh?"
"And Shen."
"That little slanty-eyed butt-wiggler?"
Ender decided that Alai was joking. "Hey, we can’t all be niggers."
Seriously - the meaning of the term "bugger" in the UK is highly unlikely to have had bearing on the use of the term - unless you can source otherwise, of course - in which case I stand corrected.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think as a series marketed to young people with a global audience (after the first edition was published), Card's editors likely encouraged him to switch to "formic." Am I remembering right that he uses the term less and less as the series goes on? Okay, maybe "bugger" is more on the level with "screw" in American English. But a book about "screwers" seems a bit suspect to my maternal ears. So I am not arguing that Card would have avoided the term if only he had known how vulgar it was, or that he was afraid of using swear words. He clearly wasn't afraid to use swear words appropriate for his characters! I am trying to explain why his usage of "bugger" shifted over the course of writing the series. Slate mentions that the movie adaptation doesn't use the term so much:
Consider the book’s aliens. Throughout the book, they’re called “buggers,” a nickname that derives from their insectoid quality. But the word bugger is principally a derogatory slang term for gay men and gay sex, meaning “to sodomize” as a verb and one who engages in “sodomy” as a noun. Granted, the slang is chiefly British, and it’s possible that the American Card either wasn’t aware of it or didn’t expect his readers to be. But it makes for awkward reading today. (At one point a character insults his rivals by calling them “bugger-lovers.”) In the movie, the buggers are referred to throughout by another name also used by Card in the Ender series, but not in the first book: “the Formics” (formic  means “of or relating to ants”). This is the term the movie uses even when Ender and his older brother play “Formics and Astronauts” (called “Buggers and Astronauts” in the book, it appears to be a sci-fi version of “Cowboys and Indians”).
If Card's references from "bugger" do shift to "formic" over the series, that's interesting. I'm planning to add more literary analysis summaries to this page later this year, so I'll be on the lookout for other explanations. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's a bit of a sketchy source, but I think this is where I read that Card wanted to change to use the word formic instead of bugger for the movie: stack exchange quoting an interview. Their link doesn't work but you can read the original here, where Gavin Hood says it was Card's decision not to use bugger in the movie. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Just want to be clear that I support the use of "Formic" over "Bugger" as I state in my opening comment - I'm just questioning the rationale behind the change by the author from one term to another.  I accept that precedent has been set - I read the UK imprints of The Han Solo Adventures featuring Zollux when first released, and found it hilarious when years later I got the e-books only to find out he was originally called "Bollux"...  Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I have replaced all instances of 'Formic' with 'bugger'. Reasoning - the word 'Formic' never appears in this novel. I believe this page should be mostly self-contained to this novel, even if the term 'Formic' is used in the movie, or later novels. 
The term 'bugger war' or 'bugger wars' appears 14 times in the novel, and there are multiple references to the First and Second Invasions. No mention of a single 'Formic war'. 
Neuralnewt (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Noah Berlatsky's article, "Why Sci-Fi Keeps Imagining the Subjugation of White People", is included in the "Critical response" section (citation 21). Unlike every other citation in this section, however, this is not an article about Ender's Game specifically, and in fact only briefly mentions it in two sentences:
"Ender's Game, both film and book, use the invasion of the superior aliens not as a critique of Western expansion and genocide, but as an excuse for those things. The bugs invade human worlds, and the consequence is that the humans must utterly annihilate the alien enemy, even if Ender feels kind of bad about it."
Doesn't this criticism seem kind of flippant, especially compared to the in-depth articles elsewhere in the section, which are based on direct textual evidence in long-form manner? Placing it in the section between the articles by Radford, Kessel, and Ryder gives the incorrect impression that Berlatsky's article is a similarly in-depth, scholarly criticism.
I would recommend the sentence about Berlatsky's article be deleted entirely. If it's important to maintain a reference to criticism about Ender's Game's colonialist themes, then an article that deals with the book more directly should be found.
I want to make it clear my criticism is not that Berlatsky is negative about the book; I find Radford and Kessel's negative criticisms perfectly fine to include. I just think for a book that has no shortage of real criticism, including a Twitter-length aside from an article that isn't really about Ender's Game is suboptimal. Voeltz (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)