SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

For those of you reading Ender for the first time, or can remember back to your first time, what are/were your first impressions?

I'm really liking it so far. I'm fascinated by how perceptive Ender is of the group dynamics and how well he manipulates people. It's hard for me to picture him as a 7 year old boy.

The first 96 pages flew by and I really want to sit and read the rest of the book right now but I have to stop and pick up my daughter and make dinner.

While this is my first time reading Ender’s Game, I have read the whole Shadow series. I have also read Speaker for the Dead. Don’t ask me why. After reading the Shadow books, I had no desire to read Ender’s Game, because I found Bean much more interesting than the perpetually brooding, it’s-hard-to-be-so-perfect Ender. But I finally gave in and I’m enjoying it. It’s interesting to see how Ender developed into the character that I first encountered in Ender’s Shadow.

Kristen, I must agree. There are a lot of incredibly intelligent children. Their fast learning and creative brilliance might even be useful in some military contexts. But the level of leadership, group cohesion, and even mindreading is a little unbelievable.

Anyway, my first impression was along the lines of, "This is terrific." At the time, I was about 12. I identified with Ender and envied the drama of his short life. "If only someone would just recognize my brilliance and shower me with distinction." I thought. But things rarely work out that way, do they?

I remember being pretty struck by Ender's viciousness. I was watching some gangster movies around that time, so I associated him with the brutality depicted in those movies. I certainly didn't look up to him, but was fascinated. I wanted to find out what would happen. Given that I had already placed him in the category of a brutal aggressor I was really caught off-guard by the ending. I think my mental state at the time had a lot to do with how impressed I was with the book. I remember liking the sequels to some extent, but not nearly as much as Ender's Game.

Justin,
I don't see Ender as vicious or brutal at all. He was manipulated by Graff and the system and put in terrible positions where he had to defend himself. The fact that he struggled with guilt and the fear of becoming Peter, shows just how human and compassionate he is.

J-Lynn said: I don't see Ender as vicious or brutal at all. He was manipulated by Graff and the system and put in terrible positions where he had to defend himself.

I don't see Ender as *needlessly* vicious or brutal; however, he is certainly efficient with his violence. IMO this marks a very important aspect of military leadership where controlled violence is required to achieve your strategic objectives. This represents the psychological component behind war that many 'war stories' miss.

A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.
George S. Patton

I may of read this a long long time ago. I can't remember but I picked this up at my local library and once I started reading, I couldn't put it down.

I was at first shocked at how they were monitoring the "special" children. I was not shocked at the 2 kids per couple issue as I think one day the world will be like that if it continues to grow as it is.

It wasn't very difficult for me to see these kids as kids. But I was shocked at how adults manipulation of the kids, especially Ender, ended up forcing a brilliant mind to violence. A violence that Ender abhorred. I felt akin to Ender but I also recognize I could never be him.

A storm brings the needed rain but often hides the dangers of lightning and wind. ~Josephine Kelly

I just started it this morning and a couple of things are sticking out already.

First, "buggers". I don't know what they are yet or how they got that nickname, but it's such a strange, misplaced context and really threw me. It's gonna take me a while to get used it.

Secondly, what does Graff mean about there being few girls in the program because they have centuries of evolution against them?

I really haven't got very far yet (Ender is meeting Graff for the first time), but I am enjoying it so far.

Shannon said: Secondly, what does Graff mean about there being few girls in the program because they have centuries of evolution against them?

Well ... I am not entirely sure; genetic evolution would require much more then centuries to effect much of a change at all, so I am reasonably sure he was talking about societal evolution. Given the time period he was writing and the fact that it is STILL difficult to recruit women into the Armed Forces, I think it likely that he is referring to a social conditioning of girls not to be physically aggressive or overly violent and that this was the opposite of what they were looking for ... after all, that is why they rejected Valentine.

Shannon: Glad you picked up on the girls being left out issue. I'm just coming off a discussion about Heinlein and women so this stuck out like a sore thumb. It seems like just a cop out by Card to avoid writing girls at the school so that he can keep Valentine in a "world apart." That may be just me - and who knows what will happen in the next 100 pages (: So far, it hasn't bothered me or detracted from the story to not have (many) girls at the school.

As for the centuries of evolution against them, I don't get that either unless Card really believes women are evolutionarily deficient.

Otherwise, I am thoroughly enjoying the book. I have no problem with the genius level of the children, how they talk, the way they see through each other as well as adults, or how they behave. I think children are smarter than most people are willing to give them credit for being. Children are also pretty darn perceptive, so the strategies Ender uses to deal with various situations seem entirely likely to me.

Can't wait to read how the rest of the story develops!

J-Lynn,
I agree now, in fact I think my opinion had changed by the time I finished the book. Those were just my first impressions as I started reading it, and they probably had a lot to do with other things I was thinking about. I just thought it provided an interesting perspective.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the Wiggin kids all hoped to be "the one" and while Peter failed because he lacked sufficient empathy, Valentine had the empathy but wasn't ruthless enough. Point being, she would have gone if she had been suitable.

I don't know that I would necessarily frame it as Card believing women are "evolutionarily deficient," per se, though I suspect that Card is saying that there are biological differences between men and women which tend to make men more suited to be hunters/warriors while women are better gatherers nurturers. Not that some women or some men might not cross over those "innate" tendencies, just that things tend to fall out that way. That, at least, is what I would guess based on other things he's written.

Having read this for the first time, I have to say that I really like the way that Card writes. I'll have to try some more of his books...

I agree with John's statement, and will take a leap of faith here (or a large assumption), and state that maybe with population control in effect, maybe parents are more apt to want male children over female? Much like China? Or maybe he's assuming that since we are in conflict, that more male babies will be born? Again... large assumptions on my part, but trying to think of why :D

As for Ender, I find myself making a comparison between him and the Reluctant Hero Archtype of Joseph Campbell. Gifted with talents that far surpass that of his peers, he is ridiculed and reviled, his talents lead the masses from the wilderness and into sanctuary. However, he is troubled with self-doubt and loathing of himself.

I'm really enjoying the book so far; it's such an easy read, and yet it's not simple. I'm hating the fact that I have to be at work and couldn't stay up for another hour or two to finish it last night.

I, too, think that children are smarter than we give them credit for - Card's statement in his intro that he never felt like a child really resonated with me. I understand exactly what he means. I have no problem picturing all these little kids running around, and in fact, I don't think the story would have the same meaning if it was about young adults at a college-level military school. There's something very eerie about adults sitting around and saying, "Let's breed these children to save us." I think they need children, because they are untainted by a lifetime of impressions - they don't have biases or stereotypes or preconceived notions of what works and what doesn't. They're creating fresh battle and survival strategies that adults might be too experienced to come up with.

I don't have any issues with Card's treatment of women. Today, in our modern society, we STILL tend to think of war and fighting as "male." They still monitored and evaluated Valentine - this suggests they think it's still possible for girls to be suitable for their purposes. If Valentine had been excluded from all consideration simply because she was female, I might protest, but she DID get a monitor.

John said: I don't know that I would necessarily frame it as Card believing women are "evolutionarily deficient," per se, though I suspect that Card is saying that there are biological differences between men and women which tend to make men more suited to be hunters/warriors while women are better gatherers nurturers. Not that some women or some men might not cross over those "innate" tendencies, just that things tend to fall out that way. That, at least, is what I would guess based on other things he's written.

I think deficient is too strong a term; IMHO the statement was designed to highlight a disadvantage that could be over come, but that is difficult and therefore few women manage to accomplish it. Card does model at least 1 girl who does this sucessfully ... Petra.

I think I agree with Krisjan, and also, having studied history, I know that the so-called biological qualities of nurterer vs hunter etc are socially constructed rather than innate, and fairly recent in the scheme of things. But we come down pretty heavily on women who don't like children and men who aren't aggressive - very stupid.

And the reason why a lot of cultures still value male children over female ones is because females are much less likely to be able to take care of their parents in old age, since they are restricted in terms of jobs (if they are allowed to work at all), and leave their original family to join their husband's. So they are unable to contribute to the economy/GDP - in the traditional sense (obviously the work that they do - raising children, farming etc. - is essential and of very high value. It just isn't counted by eonomists.) Once you remove the social taboos and allow women to earn money etc., the need for male children over female goes out the window - as we see in our own society, in general.

Back to the book, I'm enjoying it but I generally leave any critiquing until I've finished a book, so while I read I simply respond to the writing and the story itself, and usually on an emotional level. That's just me, but if I really like a book at that level I find it very easy to ignore its flaws etc. :)

WOW! When I posted the "evolutionarily deficient" statement I didn't expect to get that much of a response. It was a throw away.

I will defend it though. Card specifically stated that women have "centuries of evolution against them". Evolution tends to imply biologically, but I see where one could look at sociological evolution as well. If evolution is against them, then the women of Card's creation must be deficient in some way. I did NOT mean for the original statement to come off quite so aggressive. I certainly don't think Card is saying all women are less than men.

As Kristjan pointed out, Petra succeeds in the same environment. (*SPOILER* One could argue that Card makes her the first one to crack under pressure, but that's a nit.)

Really, I don't think Card means to address male versus female roles in Ender's Game. I think it was simply an easy way for him to continue the book with a mostly male cast of characters.

I even like that most of the characters are male. Between the (almost) all male environment and the (mostly) pre-pubescent ages, Card has nicely sidestepped having to deal with hormones getting in the way of the Game. I really enjoyed this book and like how he presented the environment. The inner workings of the social framework are indicative to varying degrees of any military school, boarding school, or even good ol' public school.

I am enjoying the book so far. This is my first time reading it and I have always wanted to read it. I am enjoying how Card writes about Ender's ability to study the tactics of others. And how Card seems to be setting up how Ender will become a commander (I haven't read past pg 100). I know a little about military and one of the times that I have seen a difference between men and women was when my husband worked in the fighter squadron and there weren't very many women.. in-fact I want to say that there was only 1 women pilot in the squadron. But I think that it is more of who makes it through training school that determines how many women fly.

HA! Bamboozled! This is the actual May reread. Sort of ignore the title of this thread...it's a regular "no spoilers" thread!

I started it today. I read it once a long time ago. Interested to see how well it holds up.

I'll join this re-read even though I just looked it up and its my 4th time reading it since 2011. I love this book so much. A page turner from page 1.

I'm in and started it today for the first time. So far, I like the style and narrative, though Ender’s age appears to be older than 7 years. I usually love coming of age stories but am a bit apprehensive because of the bad press about the author. Still, I thought I’ll give this a try and judge the work for myself, especially given that I already voted for this book.

The movie really toned the brutality of this book way down. I was astonished when I read it. There are also some sequels and a parallel perspective novel. I recommend them all. This author is creative and intriguing.