I couldn't help but think about Mars Attacks while we were talking about Ender's Game. In that movie, they try to communicate, sort of succeed but it turns out they were wrong and the aliens were hostile. It was using logic and reasoning, as opposed to gut instinct, that led them down the wrong path and got everybody killed. Except for the guy and his grandmother with that terrible country music who saved the day. And in Aliens last night, thinking that they weren't as bad as Ripley said they were got Burke into trouble, besides him being a jerk in the first place. So sometimes, thinking the aliens mean you no harm is kind of stupid.
At the same time, thinking the aliens, or other groups, are always out to get you is equally stupid. I watched this movie, Fail-Safe, for my capstone that dealt with Cold War era mentality that forced these pilots to ignore voice commands from the commanders, even the president, because voices could be faked. The problem was that they'd gotten orders to go and attack Russia based on a computer glitch and Russian jamming of transmissions meant that they couldn't receive nullifying orders in the proper time frame. These pilots didn't even question their orders, never mind that they'd never gotten a go ahead order (which also speaks to the success of their training) and figured that the country had been attacked and they had to go in. At the moment I can't think of examples where the aliens meant no harm the entire time, because we established in Ender's Game the aliens were hostile for a while, but I'm sure they are out there. Probably in Star Trek.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Class 3/18
I personally think asking the class to put themselves in the position to decide how to handle the buggers was a bad idea. I know that the intention was to foster a debate about the morals and factors that went into such a situation. However, it quickly devolved into a few people saying the IF were absolutely right and a few saying they were absolutely wrong. I don't think there was any real development of an argument other than the two sides becoming so entrenched that they were not able to see the others perspective.
As far as the discussions of a possible movie. I am probably one of the few that believe a movie could work for this book. However, I think Card would have to be removed from the project. If a movie version let the audience know that Ender was not just playing a game then the entire point of the story would be missing. The story works because not only is Ender shocked but the reader is too. If the viewer knew in the beginning, where would the shock be?
I think this is one of the best books we have read yet. I just wish we were watching Starship Troopers this week because I can see alot of parallels with that, not so many with Aliens.
As far as the discussions of a possible movie. I am probably one of the few that believe a movie could work for this book. However, I think Card would have to be removed from the project. If a movie version let the audience know that Ender was not just playing a game then the entire point of the story would be missing. The story works because not only is Ender shocked but the reader is too. If the viewer knew in the beginning, where would the shock be?
I think this is one of the best books we have read yet. I just wish we were watching Starship Troopers this week because I can see alot of parallels with that, not so many with Aliens.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Reflection on Ender's Game
Hello everyone:
The thing that kind of bothered me about today's class was how many people (but not all) decided that they would make the same choice as the IF, if they were in charge of the situation. I am not attacking them for their decision, but I am afraid that my understanding of the circumstances forces me to still disagree. I definitely heard where people were coming from by saying that the human-to-human conflicts are different than the human-to-bugger issue, but I must stick with the points I made in class - the underlying points remain the same. If we agree to attack some sort of other based merely on two facts - we cannot communicate with them, and they seem to be hostile - then the world will continue to not be a friendly place. I brought up the example of how the colonists treated the Native Americans (which Lena later echoed in relation to another point), so I thought I would try and bring up some additional anecdotal evidence here.
The other biggest example that comes to mind is the manner in which the Roman empire worked- this isn't a perfect fit, but some of the ideas here apply. The Romans made it their policy to allow nations to either surrender and assimilate into Rome, or be destroyed utterly. This led to the destruction of some "barbarian" tribes in Germania, because they wouldn't comply (barbarian being a Greek word taken by the Romans and later civilizations to: the original meaning comes from "barbar" being used to describe the (seemingly) nonsense language of the outsiders). These specific instances are similar to what the IF did to the buggers. The buggers (Germanic tribes, specifically the Illyrians) attacked Earth (Rome), and did not communicate at once or in understood ways, and as a result they were crushed. As a result, the military prowess of these people (the Romans lost three full legions to them before crushing them) as a learnable skill was gone - similar to all the possible gains lost through the destruction of the buggers.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire
To support my ideas from a different direction, lets look at a similar phenomena that occurred twice, in completely different circumstances. During the American Civil War, brother fought brother over the issue of slavery - or to restate the problem, they could no longer communicate about the issue and one viewpoint had to be destroyed in favor of the other. Many soldiers died fighting in setpiece battles, and due to lack of medical attention or supplies. That said, General Lee eventually surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse - while this was happening, the former enemies, both Union and Confederate soldiers, played baseball together in order to pass the time. This is only one example from that war, but think about the parallels to the buggers - both sides in the Civil War definitely has avenues of communication, but they did not pursue them, and chose to fight instead.
reference: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/aubrecht2004b.shtml
The other example that comes to mind is during the Christmas of 1914. during the Christmas Truce between the German and British soldiers. The common soldiers merely stopped fighting for several days, and exchanged presents and made friends with each other. There was a clear disagreement between the two sides, and they killed each other mercilessly both before and after this Truce, but when they both pursued communication, things improved. Neither side was completely fluent in the other's language, but they still shared a sense of similarity. I feel that the bugger/human conflict has a parallel: when the queen has the model of the giant's corpse built, it is an attempt to talk to a human in a way they understand (the Truce having soldiers exchange gifts and throwing snowballs, areas where they could comprehend each other).
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
Something to think about, I suppose.
Have a good evening.
-Mike
The thing that kind of bothered me about today's class was how many people (but not all) decided that they would make the same choice as the IF, if they were in charge of the situation. I am not attacking them for their decision, but I am afraid that my understanding of the circumstances forces me to still disagree. I definitely heard where people were coming from by saying that the human-to-human conflicts are different than the human-to-bugger issue, but I must stick with the points I made in class - the underlying points remain the same. If we agree to attack some sort of other based merely on two facts - we cannot communicate with them, and they seem to be hostile - then the world will continue to not be a friendly place. I brought up the example of how the colonists treated the Native Americans (which Lena later echoed in relation to another point), so I thought I would try and bring up some additional anecdotal evidence here.
The other biggest example that comes to mind is the manner in which the Roman empire worked- this isn't a perfect fit, but some of the ideas here apply. The Romans made it their policy to allow nations to either surrender and assimilate into Rome, or be destroyed utterly. This led to the destruction of some "barbarian" tribes in Germania, because they wouldn't comply (barbarian being a Greek word taken by the Romans and later civilizations to: the original meaning comes from "barbar" being used to describe the (seemingly) nonsense language of the outsiders). These specific instances are similar to what the IF did to the buggers. The buggers (Germanic tribes, specifically the Illyrians) attacked Earth (Rome), and did not communicate at once or in understood ways, and as a result they were crushed. As a result, the military prowess of these people (the Romans lost three full legions to them before crushing them) as a learnable skill was gone - similar to all the possible gains lost through the destruction of the buggers.
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_empire
To support my ideas from a different direction, lets look at a similar phenomena that occurred twice, in completely different circumstances. During the American Civil War, brother fought brother over the issue of slavery - or to restate the problem, they could no longer communicate about the issue and one viewpoint had to be destroyed in favor of the other. Many soldiers died fighting in setpiece battles, and due to lack of medical attention or supplies. That said, General Lee eventually surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Courthouse - while this was happening, the former enemies, both Union and Confederate soldiers, played baseball together in order to pass the time. This is only one example from that war, but think about the parallels to the buggers - both sides in the Civil War definitely has avenues of communication, but they did not pursue them, and chose to fight instead.
reference: http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/aubrecht2004b.shtml
The other example that comes to mind is during the Christmas of 1914. during the Christmas Truce between the German and British soldiers. The common soldiers merely stopped fighting for several days, and exchanged presents and made friends with each other. There was a clear disagreement between the two sides, and they killed each other mercilessly both before and after this Truce, but when they both pursued communication, things improved. Neither side was completely fluent in the other's language, but they still shared a sense of similarity. I feel that the bugger/human conflict has a parallel: when the queen has the model of the giant's corpse built, it is an attempt to talk to a human in a way they understand (the Truce having soldiers exchange gifts and throwing snowballs, areas where they could comprehend each other).
reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
Something to think about, I suppose.
Have a good evening.
-Mike
Monday, March 17, 2008
Ender's Game
Well, I have just completed Monday having spent the whole night attempting to sleep on a 13 hour train trip and I have already made the Wikipage for this. Therefore I am not totally coherent in order to properly comment on the book.
I do remember one of the things that struck me the most was that I have read something very similar to this. I have no idea what the name of the book was, what the names of the characters were, or really any details about it whatsoever, I just know that this book gave me serious deja vu.
Another work I also thought alot about while reading this was the film, I haven't read the book, Starship Troopers. I guess its kind of superficial because in each the humans were fighting the bugs in space.
I also wonder what everybody else thinks about the way they didn't tell Ender that what he was doing was real. I mean, I understand that it would have made him stop but come on. A little kid has just wiped out an entire civilization and nobody bothered to at least give him a hint.
I really thought it was quite moving that the buggers knew that they were going to be defeated and gave their future into the hands of the boy that wiped them out.
I do remember one of the things that struck me the most was that I have read something very similar to this. I have no idea what the name of the book was, what the names of the characters were, or really any details about it whatsoever, I just know that this book gave me serious deja vu.
Another work I also thought alot about while reading this was the film, I haven't read the book, Starship Troopers. I guess its kind of superficial because in each the humans were fighting the bugs in space.
I also wonder what everybody else thinks about the way they didn't tell Ender that what he was doing was real. I mean, I understand that it would have made him stop but come on. A little kid has just wiped out an entire civilization and nobody bothered to at least give him a hint.
I really thought it was quite moving that the buggers knew that they were going to be defeated and gave their future into the hands of the boy that wiped them out.
Ender's Game: Pre-class Reaction
The big theme that really resonated with me is the idea of failure to communicate. In science fiction the interaction with “the other” is obviously taken to a new level, with the interaction with a completely different alien species. But like all good science fiction, usually one can tie that to the contemporary world. Cultural interaction is about interaction with an “other” they may look like “buggers” but some cultures can seem alien to us too. The twist at the end was alluded to (Ender asks, well what if it’s just a mistake, and the reply he gets is survive first ask questions later), and I am glad the author did it that way; because it shows that the “other” is not monstrous, just misunderstood. The phrase that comes to mind is “to err is human” in the end we find that the aliens are not some malicious monsters bent on galactic domination, but just a society so different from ours that they realized their mistake too late. This theme of understanding and communication can also be seen in other fiction works, in Ursula Le Guin’s Left Hand of Darkness (I did a wiki on this in case you want to know more about it). There is also an interaction between two alien races, and even though they have the physical means to communicate (something the buggers did not), the two main characters still miscommunicate at first, in large due to bias and not bothering to truly understand. That’s another issue with communication, often one regards his culture (or race) as superior or they believe their way is the right way. Something new or different or unknown is feared, it’s too dangerous to just embrace something like that and people tend to become very cautious and build walls to protect themselves, or fear (which can lead to anger or hatred) consumes them. True communication and understanding is a delicate balance. One can’t simply disregard their own background and nature and embrace the other, but one can’t also completely reject the other. I look forward to seeing what other authors do with the theme of “the other.”
Another issue in the book that I found interesting was the tactics used with the kids, the sheer manipulation for the ultimate goal. And I agree with Jen’s point, one kind of needs to accept the fact that at some parts of the book the characters are about 6 years old, just get used to the fact that they are super children and move on with the story. But how the kids acted is not too farfetched, because games are still what is used to teach them. That’s why they had to keep it as games: if it didn’t have that title it would be completely different. It’s not like the children believe at the time of the games they have an impact on the world, they believe they are just being trained for things later in the future, and in the first school it was indeed just training games. In a way lots of children’s games even in real life are meant to “train” the child for life. It’s just that in the book the children were trained for a different type of life and more intensely. But the human mind is designed to try and solve problems, and games train the mind to think that way. Every game has a goal and the player needs to figure out how to reach it. In the case of Ender and the kids, their goal was to win against the other team. By putting things into such simple terms for them they made it easy for the kids. In the case of games; when their team won, the other team was still ok in the end, not dead. It would be different and would have had a whole different weight if they were taught using battles to the death. That would have produced completely different people. I also found the fact that the adults kept the truth from Ender the only way it would have worked with him. By making him think he is still playing games, the rules of a game still applied, real life holds more consequence, and they let him make real life decisions without having to worry about those consequences (since he didn’t know they existed). In the end his actions still lie heavy on his shoulders, but the situation in which the decisions were made matters.
All in all I found that this book really made me think about a lot of things, and it indeed raises a lot of issues and interesting ideas.
Another issue in the book that I found interesting was the tactics used with the kids, the sheer manipulation for the ultimate goal. And I agree with Jen’s point, one kind of needs to accept the fact that at some parts of the book the characters are about 6 years old, just get used to the fact that they are super children and move on with the story. But how the kids acted is not too farfetched, because games are still what is used to teach them. That’s why they had to keep it as games: if it didn’t have that title it would be completely different. It’s not like the children believe at the time of the games they have an impact on the world, they believe they are just being trained for things later in the future, and in the first school it was indeed just training games. In a way lots of children’s games even in real life are meant to “train” the child for life. It’s just that in the book the children were trained for a different type of life and more intensely. But the human mind is designed to try and solve problems, and games train the mind to think that way. Every game has a goal and the player needs to figure out how to reach it. In the case of Ender and the kids, their goal was to win against the other team. By putting things into such simple terms for them they made it easy for the kids. In the case of games; when their team won, the other team was still ok in the end, not dead. It would be different and would have had a whole different weight if they were taught using battles to the death. That would have produced completely different people. I also found the fact that the adults kept the truth from Ender the only way it would have worked with him. By making him think he is still playing games, the rules of a game still applied, real life holds more consequence, and they let him make real life decisions without having to worry about those consequences (since he didn’t know they existed). In the end his actions still lie heavy on his shoulders, but the situation in which the decisions were made matters.
All in all I found that this book really made me think about a lot of things, and it indeed raises a lot of issues and interesting ideas.
Ender's Game: a look into attitude
This past week is the second time I have read this book, and I caught something entirely different this time: the foreshadowing near the beginning, with the Giant game and Fairyland (pg. 60-65). At this point, Ender makes the comment that this terrible game only ever gives him the chance to kill or be killed, by drinking those shot glasses of poison, or apparently by killing the giant. This is very interesting, and I call it foreshadowing for a specific reason - I am not referring to the progression of the Giant's decay or the game throughout the book, but rather the theme of doing anything will lead to someone's pain eventually.
The other point in the book where this sentiment struck me and began to come into focus was when Graff asks Valentine to write Ender a letter (pg. 143-151). At this point, Valentine defends Ender as being nothing like Peter at all, because he was always so nice and would never do anything to hurt anybody (although his history shows otherwise). Peter is a terrible person, who enjoys playing on other's fears (and is therefore representative of people who always assume the worst case is the reality of a situation). When Graff explains that Ender feeding the squirrels would only make them easier for Peter to terrorize, this portion of the book clicked with me very well. This line of arguments follows the real world in terms of giving aid to refugees. It can seem like helping people in war-torn regions is a waste, because there will only be more refugees again when some other marauding force comes through and lays waste to their lands. Take this line of reasoning back even further, and you end up with the Myth of Sisyphus - basically, this man was sentenced to the eternal punishment of rolling a boulder up a series of progressively higher hills. If there is nothing to life but a series of more difficult tasks, what makes people keep going? Why do we keep rolling these damned stones up stupid hills and mountains? From this general viewpoint, I can relate this back to Ender's education at the Battle School - he keeps dealing with everything the teachers and Graff can throw at him, and he does so at cost to himself.
I am not despairing over this human situation (I have my own personal set of motivations that move me past the wonderful problems in life), but I thought that the book is an interesting look into the manner in which life seems to work for people. I am equally curious to hear what motivates other people in life.
-Mike
The other point in the book where this sentiment struck me and began to come into focus was when Graff asks Valentine to write Ender a letter (pg. 143-151). At this point, Valentine defends Ender as being nothing like Peter at all, because he was always so nice and would never do anything to hurt anybody (although his history shows otherwise). Peter is a terrible person, who enjoys playing on other's fears (and is therefore representative of people who always assume the worst case is the reality of a situation). When Graff explains that Ender feeding the squirrels would only make them easier for Peter to terrorize, this portion of the book clicked with me very well. This line of arguments follows the real world in terms of giving aid to refugees. It can seem like helping people in war-torn regions is a waste, because there will only be more refugees again when some other marauding force comes through and lays waste to their lands. Take this line of reasoning back even further, and you end up with the Myth of Sisyphus - basically, this man was sentenced to the eternal punishment of rolling a boulder up a series of progressively higher hills. If there is nothing to life but a series of more difficult tasks, what makes people keep going? Why do we keep rolling these damned stones up stupid hills and mountains? From this general viewpoint, I can relate this back to Ender's education at the Battle School - he keeps dealing with everything the teachers and Graff can throw at him, and he does so at cost to himself.
I am not despairing over this human situation (I have my own personal set of motivations that move me past the wonderful problems in life), but I thought that the book is an interesting look into the manner in which life seems to work for people. I am equally curious to hear what motivates other people in life.
-Mike
Visions of the Future, Courtesy of Card
Ender's Game...so much to talk about. I liked it. The end threw me a bit but it was supposed to, so no hard feelings Mr. Card. I hope everyone had a relaxing Spring Break, I mostly did.
First off, I thought the planning and work done to ensure Ender was the person the IF wanted was very interesting. Peter was rejected for the cruel streak he displayed so well with Ender, Valentine was too gentle, but Ender somehow was in the middle. From what I know about child-raising and psychological development, that's not something you can usually plan for. Parents may correct their tactics if they see one child is doing something out of the norm the parents wanted to create, but Peter was careful to keep his work away from the adults and they couldn't have known about it by the time Ender was born. So I think it is with a bit of luck that Ender came out with the personality he did. Shaped by an aversion to the cruelty displayed by Peter and nurtured by the love of his sister, he just happened to be what the fleet needed.
Second, I found the shaping of Ender by the Battle School instructors to be interesting as well. They let him cultivate friendships and gain skills then sought to separate him and make him compete with others. Necessary, perhaps, for the commander they wanted him to be. However, Ender was what, six when he entered the school? They were trusting him to display an emotional and mental maturity that not many children his age have as he went through the school. In fact, all the children in this book are sort of 'wise beyond their years' so to speak. I suppose we really are getting older younger, in that experiences that used to happen later are happening earlier. So in the future, we'll all be geniuses, or at least those luck ones, by the age of 6 and able to strategize for major military operations by the time we're in our early teens. Excellent.
Last, as Professor Jackson said last class, this is our first book with actual aliens. Insectoid ones at that. Eww. Creepy. Or at least that's what everyone down on Earth, or above it, or near-ish it, is supposed to think. They're weird, they aren't human, they'd probably eat people if given the chance. Which of course, our brave fleet soldiers won't let happen. It's interesting what the combination propaganda and fear towards the unknown can produce. As Colbert says, there's fear out there and someone has to monger it, but the fears being played on are quite real and not exactly contrived. Not exactly contrived as in blown up from a small discomfort, but capitalized on as being a response to a perceived threat. A perceived threat as in one coming in great big ships and since we can't understand them we naturally have to be proactive and figure they're out to get us. Oh, for a Universal Translator! Or at least the Babel Fish. Or C-3PO. It's an interesting mixture of fear of something new and utterly different from what is known to you and the jumping to the wrong conclusions because of it.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
First off, I thought the planning and work done to ensure Ender was the person the IF wanted was very interesting. Peter was rejected for the cruel streak he displayed so well with Ender, Valentine was too gentle, but Ender somehow was in the middle. From what I know about child-raising and psychological development, that's not something you can usually plan for. Parents may correct their tactics if they see one child is doing something out of the norm the parents wanted to create, but Peter was careful to keep his work away from the adults and they couldn't have known about it by the time Ender was born. So I think it is with a bit of luck that Ender came out with the personality he did. Shaped by an aversion to the cruelty displayed by Peter and nurtured by the love of his sister, he just happened to be what the fleet needed.
Second, I found the shaping of Ender by the Battle School instructors to be interesting as well. They let him cultivate friendships and gain skills then sought to separate him and make him compete with others. Necessary, perhaps, for the commander they wanted him to be. However, Ender was what, six when he entered the school? They were trusting him to display an emotional and mental maturity that not many children his age have as he went through the school. In fact, all the children in this book are sort of 'wise beyond their years' so to speak. I suppose we really are getting older younger, in that experiences that used to happen later are happening earlier. So in the future, we'll all be geniuses, or at least those luck ones, by the age of 6 and able to strategize for major military operations by the time we're in our early teens. Excellent.
Last, as Professor Jackson said last class, this is our first book with actual aliens. Insectoid ones at that. Eww. Creepy. Or at least that's what everyone down on Earth, or above it, or near-ish it, is supposed to think. They're weird, they aren't human, they'd probably eat people if given the chance. Which of course, our brave fleet soldiers won't let happen. It's interesting what the combination propaganda and fear towards the unknown can produce. As Colbert says, there's fear out there and someone has to monger it, but the fears being played on are quite real and not exactly contrived. Not exactly contrived as in blown up from a small discomfort, but capitalized on as being a response to a perceived threat. A perceived threat as in one coming in great big ships and since we can't understand them we naturally have to be proactive and figure they're out to get us. Oh, for a Universal Translator! Or at least the Babel Fish. Or C-3PO. It's an interesting mixture of fear of something new and utterly different from what is known to you and the jumping to the wrong conclusions because of it.
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
