Ender the Discussion:The Platypus Reads Part LXXXIII
Now that I've incurred my readership's collective wrath, let me explain. I enjoyed the book; I honestly did. The writing was tight and gripping the way a great novel should be. From page one, I never wanted to put it down. The characters were interesting, the pacing flawless, and the world it created was, given its premises, believable. What fell flat then? As with Eco, the problem is one of meaning. "Ender's Game," in the end, has nothing that interesting to say.
On my first read-through, I see two major themes emerging from "Ender's Game." One, kids have amazing potential. Two, conflict comes about from a failure to understand another's perspective; another's story. The first theme is trite, but could yield unlooked for riches if properly developed. Perhaps Card does this in the subsequent books of the series. In the first volume, he does not. The second theme is the more developed and strikes me as the major meaning of the work. The Buggers try to annihilate the human race, and Peter is a sociopath, but in the end, they're not really bad, they just need someone to hear them out. What we have is the rather typical late-modern therapeutic idea that conflict only emerges from a failure to hear and understand each other's legitimate needs. It's a notion rooted in the idea that man is inherently good and that evil resides simply in ignorance or the pressures of outside, impersonal structures. Now, while there may be some truth to this, it isn't very interesting as a treatment of the problem of evil. Is there no room for choice? Is there no room for actual disagreement? Is anything actually worth disagreeing over? The therapeutic view answers these questions with a "no." My objection to that is not that it's false, though it certainly may be, but that it's uninteresting. You can get a decent pop-psychological novel from it, but there isn't enough complexity in such a view to get a "Hamlet," a "Notes From Underground," or even "The Lord of the Rings." Evil is a complex and weighty problem, the idea that it has at its root a mere failure to understand is banal.
So in the end, my complaint (if it can be called that) against "Ender's Game" is the same as that against "The Name of the Rose;" the point is not commensurate with the art of the story. Great and grand themes are evoked, but when the time comes to balance them with weighty ideas, all we get is a deferral to some trite late-modern truism. That, in itself, could be a point. If so, it isn't a very interesting one.
Same place, same time my friend? Very good. Addio!
Comments
In addition, what about the boys that Ender killed during his fights? Would listening have helped there? It seems doubtful, and I don't think Card ever suggests such a thing; in fact, Ender is commended for knowing how to end a battle, though I doubt Card himself supports such extreme measures.
Thanks for weighing in! I was hoping someone would want to dialog with me about the book.
Actually, I don't think Peter ever gets better; so I agree with you there. I think that's exactly the right read on his character. I was speaking about his last wish for Ender to tell his tale as "speaker for the dead." -sorry that wasn't clear in the post.
As for the boys that Ender kills, I think they fall under the second point of the theraputic view of evil; they are products of an oppresive system. Ender is absolved of fault for killing them on the same basis: he was just doing what the system taught him to do. It's the system, and men warped by the system, like Graff that are the real problem.
I would argue that Ender's ability to "end" conflicts decisively is what gets the main brunt of Card's critique. He's attacking what Victor Davis-Hanson calls "the Western Way of War": seeking a swift and completely decisive victory by means of overwhelming force. The use of Ender's abilities results in the needless slaughter of the Buggers. Card tells us in the denouement that the Buggers never planned to launch a third wave and were repentant but that they couldn't find a way to tell the humans that. The humans never found that out because they didn't want to know what the Buggers were saying; they just wanted to "end" them. Notice: they never think of using the ansible to reach the Bugger hive-mind.
If it helps, I see the key tip-off being Ender's eventual role as "speaker for the dead"; telling the "bad guys'" (Buggers and Peter) side of the story.
I do want to add that I think Card depoloys his ideas with great skill and subtlety; I just am not that impressed with the ideas themselves -if I'm understanding him right (and I may not. Indeed I hope I'm not!)
P.S.-Yeah, I thought it was hecka cool that he predicted the rise of social media too! I would have mentioned it, but I was trying to put this post in dialog with my post on Eco. I think I sense a theme coming with my contemporary readings, but we'll see how that pans out. "Canticle For Liebowitz" is next.
Reflecting back on the book, (which I've read a number of times) I can agree with your main point, Jim. In the grand scheme of things, intellectually, the book doesn't have much to offer, other than that children can be brighter and can achieve more than we tend to give them credit for. That, I think is what made me love the book. I don't think I've ever claimed more for the book than that.
With the two branching series you end up with two "meta" trains of thought. The first series, (Speaker for the Dead) gives you an exploration of potential LDS metaphysics. The second (branching after Ender's Shadow) gives you an exploration of LDS ethics, and follows some of the same issues you brought up in your post. Peter does change as a person by the end of the series. It isn't about him being misunderstood. Ender and Valentine had a picture of him derived mostly from the early years of their lives. Ender reconnects with Peter 50 some years later. Assume Peter was about 18 when Ender leaves, and the years following Ender's Exodus would have been some very hard years, what with going from a multinational system to a one world government. Val and Peter in one sense carried online personas that were in a sense "opposite" to who they are, and Val finds at one point that she's thinking along the lines of her persona, as a corollary the same was happening to Peter. Part of what V and E were seeing was an older brother who liked to mess with them. He maintained certain practices because he wanted to push their buttons. He was never really as "evil" as they thought he was.
As to the Speaker series, given the metaphysic, the real "evil" as discussed is the weapon being used in Ender's game. A malevolent nature is attributed to it. But the rest of it is about the same as Game.
I don't think that Card views Graff as being a problem. There are enough references throughout the series that Graff is doing the best that he can with the resources he has available to him. Remember, Graff is the one who sets up the retirement account for Ender. Graff is mostly trying to keep a system that is terminally unstable propped up long enough to deal with the "perceived" threat, as well as give specific individuals enough time to grow up so that there will be less of a clash when they come to power. (He basically manipulated a few factors so that Peter would have a chance at taking power)
Think back: why was Peter "rejected" for battle school? Because he was "too aggressive."
Honestly, that's a joke of a reason. Think about a few of the individuals there. Several of them are hyper-aggressive. In reality, Peter is no where near as aggressive as a couple of them that you encounter. (I'm borrowing heavily here from information in books from the second series) There's a couple of other interesting things you pick up from that set as well. The Wiggin parents aren't nearly as stupid as their children think they are. Example one: They birth 3 geniuses.
Example two: They birth 3 geniuses in a system with a 2 child limit, and get the government to sanction it and pay for it.
Ok, that's as much as I have at the moment. And I think I might be rambling at this point.
Thanks for chiming in! I'll keep what you said in mind when I work through the series. The Mormon ethics and Mormon metaphysics angle particularly intrigues me.
It seems like I really missed a whole side of the "Ender experience" by reading it after I was out of college. Oh well, better late than never.