> I not sure I see any point in separating them.

Suppose we found out that Gödel or Newton or Maxwell had held abhorrent social views, would that tarnish their obvious achievements? We'd still make just as effective use of their work. Similarly, the short order chef cooking my breakfast might have been an ex-con who did unspeakable things, but I can enjoy the omelette without thinking twice about its full origin story.

> expression of Card's worldview

Is the omelette an expression of the chef's worldview? Where is the line between creation and the so-called "world view" of the creator? A grad student in one of my math classes used to laugh with wicked amusement when a set was proven to be empty, as if its members had been physically and violently eradicated. Who knows what is going through the mind of the creator.

I'd argue that even if you view the Ender series as works of political rhetoric and Card as a card-carrying member of some worldview "team" (which you or I may agree or disagree with), the books may still be harmlessly enjoyed as works of fiction. The same could be said about the fiction of C.S. Lewis, Ayn Rand, Lewis Carroll, etc. It's also possible that authors of books that are indisputably measured and reasonable turn out to have personal quirks that some would find abhorrent.

Disclaimers aside, I'll focus on the gist of your comment. Have you ever seen a kid around junior high age get treated so cruelly you think it's a miracle he doesn't go Columbine on his tormentors and those who allowed it? I've seen that kind of thing and known some friends who were horribly mistreated... worse than Abu Ghraib kinds of acts. They lived in constant fear of the tormentors. Such scenarios are quite common, at least in the US.

That kid who is getting picked on in schools all across the US may have a pet that is diabetic and may fully know that if he were to inject the bully with a syringe full of veterinary insulin the tables would turn and depending on where the injection took place, he might not ever be caught. Perhaps that kid also contemplates arson or other tactics that are every bit as physically brutal. But due to his small size the victim is forced to suffer humiliation and physical pain, or (if he's aware of the ramifications) contemplate the jail time he'd receive.

Card addresses this reader, the person who knows well the day-to-day injustice of the real world, and indulges him/her in a fantasy about a world where the strong really do win -- sadly in our world the kid is likely too sensible to dispense justice with his syringe of veterinary insulin, and the schools too understaffed and teachers too cynical to lift a finger to stop horrible bullying.

So the framing is just as much about a arriving at a definition of strength and justice as it is about turning traditional notions of power on their head. These themes get stronger through the book as Ender beats and earns the respect of the older kids at Battle School and then eventually turns out to be the individual upon whom the future of humanity is gambled, a decision made by older, "stronger" individuals.

Is there a way to connect the notion of Ender's military skill and his ascent to command as a political narrative? Certainly. But consider that when the book was written the US was in the midst of a massive, cold war full of bureaucracy, and the population was subject to tremendous jingoism and fear-mongering. In light of this, the kind of video game, kids battle school that Card invents is utterly sci-fi and imaginable only in the mind of a kid or an adult who empathizes with kids in a unique way.

I think this empathy is why the book has sold so well, and really why the series has sold so well and inspired so many people. Card's expressed views are in my opinion wholly incongruous, almost to the point where I wonder if the Mormon elders have dirt on him and forced him to make those claims... either that or perhaps he's early in the throes of demential.