Thoughts on the use of Violence

[Hughes8706]

This book was really interesting in how it looked at whether actions are forgivable based on the motive, or lack thereof. I mean the saying goes that “ignorance is bliss,” and I really feel like there is something to that. For example, we saw that Ender was fine killing and destroying until he found out that those were real lives. However, once this veil of ignorance was lifted he had a complete breakdown. If we back up further, we see Ender’s violence towards others; however, do his means and lack of understanding make it better? I mean he fought back so he wouldn’t be bullied again, and he didn’t know that he killed the two boys; does this make it ok? After doing some internet reading, I found that a lot of this book’s criticism was that it made violence seem easily forgivable.

I personally think that we are looking at two very different types of violence in this book. First you have his direct attack on the other two boys. This was obviously intentional harm, although he did not realize that he had gone as far as causing their deaths. He also was doing it so that he would not be picked on again. With these two facts in mind though, I still do not think it is right or excusable. When it comes to fighting back I am definitely for it; I do not believe in getting pushed around if preventable. However, continuing to attack even after the person is down, just to make sure it does not happen again, is not really fair, sporting or right in my opinion.

Then there is the violence due to the simulations. This I think is significantly different in that he believed he was playing a simulation, so in this instance I cannot see how ignorance would not excuse his actions. It is obvious he showed remorse through his breakdown; and furthermore, he did start looking for a place for the buggers to live. So for critics to simply say that Card justifies all of Ender’s rage and violence is a bit harsh. I believe that some of his actions do deserve justification, and that Card does not justify all of Ender’s action as a means of excusing them; rather it is a means of understanding him. So I suppose I would argue that a lot of this book’s criticism, based on its use of violence, is too broad of a sweeping generalization. Would anyone else agree or have read similar critiques? Thoughts?

[^Peter]

I agree, Card didn't mean to excuse Ender for his actions, but to allow readers to understand him. The Ender series tends to focus on characterization rather that plot in my opinion.

Anyways... welcome to pweb! Stop by the hi thread in the Foyer and introduce yourself!

[Purity Control]

I completely agree with you. The critics can be too harsh sometimes. I remember one went as far as to say Ender was "comparable to Hitler".

[Jeesh_girl15]

Yeah. I agree with both of you guys. I would type more if I could think of anything else, but I think ya'll covered it.

And if you go introduce yourself, Purity, you might just get us back on track, as in the Hi thread is kinda focused on limaide right now.

[Syphon the Sun]

I remember one went as far as to say Ender was "comparable to Hitler".

Elaine Radford is an assclown. She not only thinks they're comparable, but she insists that Ender's Game is secretly an apologia for Hitler and that Ender's entire character was based upon him.

[^Peter]

Elaine Radford is an assclown. She not only thinks they're comparable, but she insists that Ender's Game is secretly an apologia for Hitler and that Ender's entire character was based upon him.[/quote]

Really!? It's just a book! (but a really good book at that)
Assclown, assclown! Where do you get names like that from?

[Syphon the Sun]

Office Space.

Samir: No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Na-ghee-na-na-jar. Nagheenanajar.
Michael: Yeah, well, at least your name isn't Michael Bolton.
Samir: You know, there's nothing wrong with that name.
Michael: There was nothing wrong with it... until I was about twelve years old and that no-talent ass clown became famous and started winning Grammys.
Samir: Hmm... well, why don't you just go by Mike instead of Michael?
Michael: No way! Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.

[zeroguy]

Elaine Radford is an assclown. She not only thinks they're comparable, but she insists that Ender's Game is secretly an apologia for Hitler and that Ender's entire character was based upon him.

She's far from the only one that thinks this. This comes up every single time I see EG mentioned anywhere besides pweb (online).

[Syphon the Sun]

She's far from the only one that thinks this. This comes up every single time I see EG mentioned anywhere besides pweb (online).

It's more than a little telling that the theory was mostly ignored or ridiculed prior to Card becoming more vocal in his opinions regarding homosexuality. Now the theory is bandied about frequently, unsurprisingly from (mostly) those who have a problem with his political/religious beliefs.

[zeroguy]

It's more than a little telling that the theory was mostly ignored or ridiculed prior to Card becoming more vocal in his opinions regarding homosexuality.

When around was that? I hadn't noticed much difference, but I don't tend to get too involved in such things.

[Peterlover14]

Homosexuality? What does OSC have to do with that?

[Syphon the Sun]

Serves me right for not checking the Enderverse often enough.

Zero, I'd probably set 2003-2004 as the point where he started becoming more vocal in his opinions regarding homosexuality. Or maybe his articles in The Mormon Times just started getting wider distribution. Either way, his opinions began entering the discussion in ways they hadn't before.

Prior to this, I'd very rarely see the Radford theory and when I did run across it, it was mostly ridiculed. And then Card started writing more critically of homosexuals and same-sex marriage and it all changed. People got flustered and went in search for the holy grail of dismissive behavior: some kind of "proof" from his past that he's batshit crazy. Oh, what's that? An article from the 1980s comparing Ender to Hitler? Yeah, that's the ticket!

And just like that, they have everything they need to dismiss anything Card will ever say because once you're accused of writing an apologia for Hitler, that's the end of the game. After all, why bother with actually arguing against what he says when you can call him a Nazi and end the discussion right there (and mark one in the win column)?


Peterlover, he's written several columns for The Mormon Times and other (mostly LDS) magazines in which he opposes same-sex marriage, the full-inclusion of openly homosexual Mormons within the church's membership, judicial activism related to same-sex marriage, etc.

[Peterlover14]

Oh, and people are mad at him because he has an opinion?

[Sonikku13]

Apparently his books can still get readers even with his so-called controversial views, which I don't really care about (I'm not interested in a lot of things, and as of right now, not interested in politics). I'll agree with you PL14, however, as people get too mad just because people are different, raised in different settings, different families instill different values, etc. Why do people get mad at being different? Isn't that what the USA promotes, freedom, allowing us to be different, to not be forced in the minority? Anyway, I'm starting to ramble on... so I should click submit...

[Peterlover14]

Hahaha I understand.

[Peterlover14]

Hahaha I understand.

[zeroguy]

Oh, and people are mad at him because he has an opinion?

No, because people disagree with him and think that if his opinions gain more widespread support, it's generally damaging to society.

And he's still able to get a ton of readers "even with" these views, since, well, his books aren't about that. I do still get annoyed when some of these things become more apparent in his works (Ender in Exile, in my opinion), but most of the time I don't think I really notice. But maybe it's just because I read most of his stuf when I was young and stupid(er). I mean, as has often been noted, there are many homosexual characters of his that are portrayed very positively. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" and all that.