Philotic Web

I just found an odd little reference to our favorite book here:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EndersGame

It's a classification of all the tried and true TV and film "tropes" (memes that haven't yet become--or so they say--cliches)

There is an unfortunate, and inappropriate, swipe at Mormonism, and Card's Mormonism, but there is is.

--Steve

Eh. That's the most pointless thing I've ever been linked to. Sorry, but I didn't need ANY of that.

About the Mormon swipe: what do you expect people to think of a small group that (at least stereotypically) believes in polygamy and that Jesus took a hard left while ascending to heaven and landed in the new world?

Well, I thought it was an interesting site, overall, since it presents all these "tropes" as a sort of list. It's as if you could take four tropes from column "A", and three tropes from column "B," mix them together, add some characters, and Wham! A brand-new sit-com!

And you know MY particular religious beliefs (or, as some might say, lack thereof). I still wouldn't take a pot-shot at someone like that! It's blind-siding them. It's a nasty little dig. I felt that, out of courtesy, and so as not to seem as if I endorsed that approach (which I don't), I'd give fair warning.

And blaming it on supposed stereotypical beliefs? Puh-Lease! If the author of that page made some off-handed racial comment based on "stereotypical beliefs" I would have included a similar warning--if I had linked to it at all.

I don't disagree... I'm just getting in their head, which is a good way to learn. And I like your idea about harvesting tropes

"Getting in someone's head" isn't necessarily a good way to learn. It's a good way to get spanked. Whether you learn or not is up to you.

Or is that "getting in someone's face"...?

Lol. My point is just that the only way to learn about others is to figure out where they're coming from.

Obviously nobody who has ever seen that page before has read EG. I checked out a little descrition of the MD device and they had it listed as a Moleclular Detachment device. So I did them a favour and edited it for them.

Dude, at least they figured out it wasn't a real doctor.

Thats true. But seriously, at least read the book before reviewing it. That's what I was getting at

Obviously nobody who has ever seen that page before has read EG. I checked out a little descrition of the MD device and they had it listed as a Moleclular Detachment device. So I did them a favour and edited it for them.

Assuming that's your typo and not theirs.... "Molecular Detachment device" is one of the names given to the little doctor:

"Why haven't I ever been trained with this?"
"You always have. We just let the computer tend to it for you. Your job is to get into a superior strategic position and choose a target. The shipboard computers are much better at aiming the Doctor than you are."
"Why is it called Dr. Device?"
"When it was developed, it was called a Molecular Detachment Device. M.D. Device."
Ender still didn't understand.
"M.D. The initials stand for Medical Doctor, too. M.D. Device, therefore Dr. Device. It was a joke."
Ender didn't see what was funny about it.

Although, I do believe Disruption is much more commonly the D in M.D. device.

Edit: Now it's listing it as "DM Engine" from Xenocide? Wtf?

Edit: Now it's listing it as "DM Engine" from Xenocide? Wtf?

Where did that come from!? I have serious doubts that that's in there... but I'm too lazy / engrossed in Tom Robbins to read through Xenocide again.