posted
I don't really think that Card has added more preaching to his books. It is preaching from a different perspective, but I think he has always put his views in his books, generally unconsciously. When I was younger, I didn't notice it in any of his early books, but there was a long gap in which I didn't read much by him (mostly because I had a hard time getting a hold of it), and reading some of his early short stories for the first time, I really started to notice it. Specifically, I read the stories contained in the "Unaccompanied Sonata" and "Changed Man" collections when I was a teenageer (about 6 years ago), but I didn't get to read the rest of "Maps in a Mirror" until I just recently, when it came out in paperback. Reading through the stories "Thousand Deaths" and "But we try not to act like it," it struck me about how much he goes on about the importance of artists in society. Thinking back, it looks to me like it was incredibly prevalent in his early books. And it strikes me that he dwelt on that subject just as much as does now on the beliefs that are currently most important to him. The passage from Speaker, for instance, strikes me as an example of it. While it struck me as incredibly true the first time I read it, it now seems to me very overdone and not a little self serving.
Looking at it from the perpective of his life history, it makes sense. When he wrote, for instance, Unaccompanied Sonata, he was relatively fresh out of getting a degree in a form art and working on another one. He had recently been part of an extremely demanding artistic enterprise. He was, it seems to me, in a perfect position to have his views about art on his mind a lot. Compare that with his situation in Shadow Puppets. He had lost a child not to long ago, which had to have a profound effect on him. So issues about families were probably on his mind a lot at that time. I am quite sure that when he both these stories, he merely wrote what he thougt was true and real. But I think his recent life experience made him more likely to empathize with Beans search for his unborn children, and that his early life experience made him more likely to empathize with a story about a stuggling artist. So I don't think he has become more preachy, it is just that different things have become more important to him.
I don't think there is anything wrong with not enjoying a story as much when it contains views that contradict positions that are dear to you. I also suspect that it is much easier to identify when an author's views become explicit when you disagree with them.
(I hope, by the way, that no one is annoyed by my playing amateur psycologist. I recognize that all that is just speculation, and that I am in no position to guess Card's state of mind.)
Now there is something that bugs me about Card's more recent books that isn't in his old ones. In his more recent books it seems that the solutions to problems have become a lot easier. This is most obvious in the Alvin Maker books, but even in his other work, it seems that there is always a group of Powerful People, who, when they become involved, solve everything fairly easily. In Shadow Puppets, it is Alai and his group, and the security agency on the station. Once they are involved, there is no real tension. In Children of the Mind, Jane and a few other people solve everything. Don't get me wrong, not all of his recent books are like this, but it seems to be fairly common recently. Another, minor point about his recent books that I don't like as much has to do with his style. His earlier books seemed more timeless, his more recent books seem more contemporary. He never shows off his style in the earlier books (except perhaps in the early Alvin books, where it fit right in), but there was something about it that made the world seem different, and I think that is important in imaginative fiction. For his contemporary novels, obviously, this doesn't matter.
As for series. I think it is best if an author writes an entire series all at once. At the very least, they should be outlined very thoroughly. I think multiple independent books in the same world are fine, but these are usually best if they are truly independent, with few recurring characters, situations, etc. I think that authors should try to finish series quickly, without going taking up more pages than are necessary or watering it down with empty books. The only time Card has really been guilty of this, in my opinion, is in Heartfire, which does not really advance the plot at all and could have been skipped without any loss.
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: it seems that there is always a group of Powerful People, who, when they become involved, solve everything fairly easily. In Shadow Puppets, it is Alai and his group, and the security agency on the station. Once they are involved, there is no real tension. In Children of the Mind, Jane and a few other people solve everything.
This seems to me to be a common failing towards the end of series. It's like a D&D campaign where the characters have gotten too powerful. During the series, the characters become more capable and more powerful. Either the characters have to face challenges that are artificially growing more difficult and somehow always seem to be barely managable to the characters (it's a good thing that magical zombie vampire dragons didn't atttack a few years ago -- we could barely manage quelling the outbreak of drunken rats back then), or things become easier for the characters.
This seems to be a common failing of series fantasy.
edit: Oh, I thought of a third option. Do what Eddings did in his second Malorean/Belgariad series -- artifically limit how and when the characters can use the cool abilities that the spent the entire last series building up.
posted
The simplest solution is simply to have characters not grow more powerful as time goes by. Many people in reality don't.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny...the first thing I thought of when I read MPH's last post was Sailor Moon. She gets more and more powerful as the series continues, so her enemies must also be getting more and more powerful because she always just barely defeats them. Same with all superhero stories.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Over the last two months I have reread Seventh Son, Red Prophet, Prentice Alvin, Alvin Journeyman, Heartfire, the Crystal City, Enchantment, Rebekah, Rachel & Leah, Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, Shadow of the Hegemon, and am in the middle of Shadow Puppets (ouch- writing it all out like that makes me wonder if I even have a life:) My only excuse is I have many on tape).
It is amazing. Those earlier works had something in them. They were mythic. They resonated. The first 3 Alvin books seemed to vibrate with mythic elements, from Lolla Wosiky's nighttime visit to Alvin to eight faced mound and the massacre at Tippy-canoe and Alvin's creation of the golden plow- it was like Alvin was following Joseph Cambell's script for truly mythic heroes. His entire life follows that pattern until, at last, he has touched the heart of creation, has finally understood his power and his purpose and how to do it.
It was so glorious. Even after I-don't-know-how-many rereads, it was glorious. Enchantment and Ender's Game, too. The Women of Genesis series is good too. But nothing compares to the power in those earlier works. The new ones are interesting, even great stories that keep your interest and are full of good ideas, but, having thought about it as I read, they lack those missing subconsciously mythic elements mentioned in that essay I cited above.
posted
I'll add my voice to the choir. I agree with IanO's view. It's almost like he's done with analyzing the world and people and has become set in his ways... or closed minded... or preachy. *shrugs*
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been "Saving" some of the older OSC books that I didn't know about at first for an opportune moment.
I recently read Wyrms and Hart's Hope. I'm 25 now. I read Ender's Game when I was 18. While they didn't move me quite as much they still did pack that power you are referring to.
I think OSC has actually gotten better at the "craft" of writing over time. But it was the rawness, that just slightly ragged edge that gave a lot of the older books their power. Because the skills are better his raw talent doesn't peek through as well because he doesn't need it as much.
Ender will always be my favorite though because I was an Ender as a child, and it speaks Truth I never thought could be articulated.
Ian, I'm delighted to see you back on the forum. Thank you for expressing exactly how I feel about early OSC: a collection of myth and power that is certainly the reason I'm here, perhaps even the reason "I am" (the person I am today) at all. And yet, when earlier today I learned a friend was a fan, I recommended she not waste her time on Shadow Puppets.
Even with far less information, I am as confident as Geoff that more magic lies in that imagination. The pathos I experienced a decade ago was not coincidence. Age may have tempered things, but it also makes me more patient Posts: 1839 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't say the Shadow series is bad at all. I find it interesting and the characters well drawn. Except that Peter seems like he needs to be in a special ed program. I mean, he went from (at least from Ender and Val's perspective) a montrous genius who tamed the beast inside himself and out of whose soul came peace and a true world government (sort of like Adam Worthing, only a little nicer). You got the impression that "The Hegemon" was really about the disparate and contradictory elements within his soul, the hatred and loathing and manipulation with the love and the loyalty and charisma and how both sides came from the same soul. "Death and healing are within every hand," expresses it perfectly, and that is FROM the Hegemon.
Naturally, what is familiar is no longer as feared or dangerously beautiful. But some characters (such as Arslan, as much as I hated that book) or Adam Worthing retain the 'alienness' so that even after much time in their heads, one still is repelled and attracted to them at the same time.
But Peter has lost that. Though a necessary plot element, the whole bringing Achilles into Brazil, against the advice of EVERYONE, was so incredibly dumb- there are no words to express the stupidity involved. And it did not help that he had some escape measures planned. The preparations do not mitigate that absolutely moronic act.
I just hope to finally see some of the monstrous genius that unites the world, like Mikal or Adam Worthing or Napoleon (in AM) in the next book. Like I said, they are interesting. And even the "preachy" points fit the plot.
But I am listening to Speaker for the Dead (unabridged Dove audio). Dear lord, even 12 years later, having read the story many times, the power is still there. It is so finely crafted and paced. Even knowing what will happen, who the people are, what the mystery is, who the people will become, because I am listening to to, I am forced, even more than if I was reading it (and could skim quickly some lead up parts) to follow the relentless pace towards little climaxes that, themselves are building toward a supreme climax. I am so looking forward to Ender's speaking and his interactions with the wives and Human and his planting, to hear them performed well.
While not "blantantly" mythological (as it is SF and the myths can be hidden in the science and 'rivets') the mythology is subtextual and unconcious. What happens seems to be right, at all times. It was the same with the first 3 Alvin books. The book is satisfying because Ender's journey and healing follows the subconcious desires of myself, the reader, yet is not slavish in its telling the hero-myth.
Ender has, from the previous book, been carrying the guilt of the world on his shoulders, willingly, and this has given him great power. He is god-like, than one who, for the sake of humanity has been the destroyer- the avenger- and, while hating that role he played, willingly carries it, all the while hoping for redemption and forgiveness. And here, at last, he is able to connect with people through more than just a speaking, to symetrically mirror his role as destroyer with one of savior with respect to the piggies, and is able to finally undo, in some small way, the xenocide.
The book is redemption and forgiveness and understanding and compassion and cruelty all in one. The god-man following his heroic journey to bring life and salvation to all ramen.
I remember reading in the forward that OSC said there was a "delicious symmetry" in having Ender the Xenocide be the savior in this story. And that with many false starts, the story finally opened to him when he let Novinha's family "take over" and so the book became what it "needed" to be. Not to say that he wasn't in control at all times. But the story he found himself telling was not necessarily the one he had set out to, or at least not that alone. It grew organically and felt right and true and he followed that.
That is the key, I truly believe, in the old writings and the new ones. Things happened (both in the writing, in OSC's case and in the reading to the audience) that just seemed right- they should happen that way. Not that we wanted those things to happen (like the massacre of the Piggies in Xenocide), but it still felt "right" or true. They were more subconsciously created and so the mythic elements manifested themselves more easily.
Perhaps it was because back then, OSC was less aware of why his stories worked and so, those that did, were natural and less consciously crafted outgrowths than his books from the late 90's (excluding Enchantment and Lost Boys, of course).
The end of Children of the Mind sticks in my mind:
quote:Valentine let her tears of memory flow as Plikt's words washed over her, touching her now and then, but also not touching her because she knew far more about Ender than anyone here, and had lost more by losing him. Even more than Novinha, who sat near the front, her children gathered near her. Valentine watched as Miro put his arm around his mother even as he held to Jane on the other side of him. Valentine noticed also how Ela clung to and one time kissed Olhado's hand, and how Grego, weeping, leaned his head into stern Quara's shoulder, and how Quara reached out her arm to hold him close and comfort him. They loved Ender too, and knew him too; but in their grief, they leaned upon each other, a family that had strength to share because Ender had been part of them and healed them, or at least opened up the door of healing. Novinha would survive and perhaps grow past her anger at the cruel tricks life had played on her. Losing Ender was not the worst thing that happened to her; in some ways it was the best, because she had let him go.
Valentine looked at the pequeninos, who sat, some of them among the humans, some of them apart. To them this was a doubly holy place, where Ender's few remains were to be buried. Between the trees of Rooter and of Human, where Ender had shed a pequenino's blood to seal the pact between the species. There were many friends among pequeninos and humans now, though many fears and enmities remained as well, but the bridges had been built, in no small part because of Ender's book, which gave the pequeninos hope that some human, someday, would understand them; hope that sustained them until, with Ender, it became the truth.
And one expressionless hiveworker sat at a remote distance, neither human nor pequenino near her. She was nothing but a pair of eyes there. If the Hive Queen grieved for Ender, she kept it to herself. She would always be mysterious, but Ender had loved her, too; for three thousand years he had been her only friend, her protector. In a sense, Ender could count her among his children, too, among the adopted children who thrived under his protection.
In only three-quarters of an hour, Plikt was done. She ended simply:
"Even though Ender's aiua lives on, as all aiuas live on undying, the man we knew is gone from us. His body is gone, and whatever parts of his life and works we take with us, they aren't him any longer, they are ourselves, they are the Ender-within-us just as we also have other friends and teachers, fathers and mothers, lovers and children and siblings and even strangers within us, looking out at the world through our eyes and helping us determine what it all might mean. I see Ender in you looking out at me. You see Ender in me looking out at you. And yet not one of us is truly him; we are each our own self, all of us strangers on our own road. We walked awhile on that road with Ender Wiggin. He showed us things we might not otherwise have seen. But the road goes on without him now. In the end, he was no more than any other man. But no less, either."...
Only the mothertree remained in the middle of the clearing, bathed in light, heavy with fruit, festooned with blossoms, a perpetual celebrant of the ancient mystery of life.
So many books follow that theme and, from the explanations OSC has put forth, came to life in the same way. They grew far beyond (and subconsciously) what they had started to be.
Thank you, OSC.
A word about the BOT readers:)
Gabrielle de Cuir- Valentine, Novinha, Theresa Wiggin, Petra. She is brilliant. Just brilliant. She has the ability to make her voice soft and childlike and depressed and yet can, as Petra or Novinha or Carlotta to Graff, use it as a saw to rip into people with such scorn. The best. Absolutely the best.
Stefan Rudnicki- Ender, Graff, Narrator, Various others. Very good. Sometimes, tends to over-pronounce words, but still quite good.
Scott Brick- Libo, Bean, Pipo- Natural and easy to listen to. Especially during the conversation between Novinha and Pipo at the beginning of Speaker (they alternated male and female, there) worked beautifully with Gabrielle de Cuir. Expresses emotion very well without trying to hard. Especially as Bean, who's supposed to be logical and in control, you can see the emotion sometimes threaten to break through the facade.
John Rubenstein- Miro and Olhado- not really impressed. Not because the reading is bad (he did ok in the OP Center books), but it either seems too performed or the voice (which sounds kind of old) doesn't fit those young characters. Doesn't do youthful enthusiam and teasing well. The pigges in those scenes are annoying because of the voice.
Shadow of the Hegemon Reader of Peter- too old. Peter sounds like a 50 year old guy living with his parents. Again, doesn't do youthful banter well. The voice kept pulling me out.
Nana Visitor- the Abridged Alvin Maker Series- brilliant. Just brilliant. Countrified narrator is a little stilted, but the emotion is real.
Robby Benson- Lost Boys- The best. Period. No one is better. Children, adults, men, women. He does it all. His voice has very manly qualities, yet the childlike innocence comes through perfectly. And the southern accents and gentility of people like Bappy or Doug Douglas sound real and, in the case of Bappy, more scarry when you know what he is. Even knowing the story, knowing the mystery and outcome, I found it powerfully moving.
Mark Rolston- Ender's series (abridged)- not that great. Especially in Speaker and Xenocide. All young people tend to sound like brats, even when they aren't supposed to. Ok, if that's all you have, but I've heard better.
posted
lan, I have noticed what you describe here. And I really like Geoff's explaination. It rings true to me.
But I also have felt lately that Card includes more of his actual beliefs in his characters than in years past. For those who have beliefs similar to OSC, this is not a problem. For those who don't, they really feel it and it grates. I really like what m_p_h said, too. OSC is far less "preachy" than many of the great authors of speculative fiction.
quote: Yeah, its forshadowed in the book. And I know LDS history enough to know how Alvin will die and, unfortunately, the likely outcome of Navoo- I mean the crystal city- with its tabernacle [Roll Eyes] .
I guess that's the real downside to basing your book, however losely, on a real person.
Keep in mind that Card has no problems with changing or "improving" the course of history. Pastwatch is a good example of this. The idea with LDS history is that Joseph Smith tried to lead his people to Zion and his people (and the rest of the world) were not ready for it. Card may "rewrite" this theme so that the people were ready for it and things do come to their intended completion. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, am I sorry the thread I started got sidetracked!
(So, of course, I will sidetrack this thread a bit with a little of my own POV.)
1) I never thought that Peter had "gotten stupid" when he brought Achilles with him. It seemed a logical extention of Peter's most successful strategy: Get another genius, and get them to do what you want. The fact that Achilles didn't work out, and the reasons he couldn't work out provided a nice counterpoint to Valentine.
2) I also thought that a professed homosexual getting married to "join the circle of life" was just an interesting twist. I found it a nice reversal from the usual professed "straight" man leaving his family because he's actually gay, but I didn't find it "preachy". I just viewed it as the difference between making a self-informed decision about what you have to sacrifice to get what you want, and making a self-deluding decision to get what everyone else tells you you should want.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were some excellent posts in this thread. I'm bumping it just so they don't get lost in the void.
Posts: 7600 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't preach in my fiction. I preach in my essays. My characters have strong opinions, but they rarely coincide with mine. What I observe in this thread is that when you THINK you know what I think, and it disagrees with what you think, THEN you accuse me of being preachy.
I remember when my play Father, Mother, Mother, and Mom was playing in Utah. No preaching - I was simply treating Mormon polygamy in the late 1800s as a fact, and seeing what it did in the lives of those who willingly practiced it.
But on the same night, after the same performance, audience members would come up to me and one would say, "I don't care what you say, polygamy was God's will!" and another would say, "I don't care what you say, polygamy was always a terrible thing and a curse on the Church."
Notice that they both thought I was "preaching" something that I was not preaching at all; and they both were ANGRY at me for preaching it.
So I have long since resigned myself to being accused of being preachy, when in fact what I do is try to show human beings as truthfully as I can, including setting out THEIR reasons for doing the things they do. Everybody has a self-story that allows them to live with themselves; I'd be a bad fiction writer if I had my characters neatly divided up into good guys and bad guys.
So some readers feel cheated because Peter turns out, from Peter's own point of view, not to be as evil as he was from Ender's point of view (duh); others are furious with me for "preaching" things that I don't think I ever would have preached because I don't even believe it. <grin>
As for some sense of deterioration in my work ... the odd thing is that people who say this invariably prefer the works they read first. For what it's worth, there are now a growing number of readers who read Ender's Shadow first, and EG long after, and most of those I've heard from think that ES is the better book. While there are still a few surviving dinosaurs who read EG as a novelet first and as a novel only later - and they often remain convinced that I ruined everything when I made it into a book.
Just in case anybody cares, I'm a far more mature writer now, and what I used to do using raw story techniques (need suffering: inflict physical pain) I now handle more in line with more plausible events that bear more resemblance to real life, and let the pain be carried emotionally.
But I still know how to write adventure, and do so when the story requires. I even know how to torment my characters with the best of them ...
The real secret here is that I try NEVER TO WRITE THE SAME BOOK TWICE. And you're bound to like one kind of book better than another. Do you really think I would even WANT to keep writing Ender's Game over and over? What's the point of that, when you can simply reread it? I'd like to think my career consisted of writing different books every time. And if I achieve that, then inevitably some will please some readers more than others.
Some think Hart's Hope is the best book I ever wrote; but it's my worst-selling book. Are they wrong?
The Shadow books are NOT the same KIND of fiction as Ender's Game. They aren't "worse," they're simply not going to fulfil the same set of expectations. Does that mean I have somehow gotten worse? I certainly hope not. After all, I wrote the best novel of my career so far, Enchantment, in the midst of my apparent collapse ...
But then, Enchantment is my first real romantic love story - but it's the kind I like, a husband and wife coming to love each other when they have already committed to marriage.
Instead of wondering why I got worse, why not simply realize that not everybody is going to like all my books, and maybe the symptoms worth examining aren't so much in me as in you. Why DON'T you like my more recent books as well as my earlier ones? Is it because some of my essays have annoyed you, and now you read my fiction with a sourer disposition? No book can survive a hostile reading. Is it because you've already READ my earlier books, and so I've lost the ability to surprise you? Is it because I'm simply writing a KIND of fiction that doesn't appeal to you as much, in which case (again) the difference is in you, and not in me?
Of course, you might all be right, and senial dementia may be setting in. But what an inconvenient time for it. Just as my books are starting to have some kind of impact, I've already lost it ...
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
Frankly, I think the writing is MUCH more solid now. I reread Songmaster a while back, and while it is very high on my list of favorite books of all time, it was pretty clear to me how much you've improved as a writer as far as plot, structure and just plain EXPLAINING things goes (it was also pretty clear to me how much I've grown as a reader that I can actually notice things like that, but that's a different post *grin*).
That I don't find, say, Shadow of the Hegemon to be as fascinating a book as Songmaster tells me the rather obvious fact that as a choir member of my church and a fairly repressed young man rather than a child-genius trying to take over the world, I'm going to relate more to Ansset than Peter. *grin*
I read most of your books in a vaguely chronological order, by the pure chance that I happened to discover them in bookstores in that order (I'm pretty deprived here in Hawaii, at least book-wise *grin*) and while it's true that some of your older works speak more to me than some of your more recent efforts, I don't see a corrollary between level of writing skill or "preachiness factor" and level of enjoyment. Rather, some of your older works were simply dealing with issues that are closer to my heart than some of your newer works. In any event, books like Enchantment written recently are just as high on my favorites list as books from the Worthing Saga era, and the only reason I can see for this is that the issues explored in them are closer to me than other books. Certainly you've told very DIFFERENT stories, and each one adds to the clarity with which you can tell new ones. And for the record, I don't think the "preachiness" factor has changed volume in recent years; you've had characters expressing views quite differently from your own (from what I can tell) since the beginning. In any case, I don't think it's a terrible to sin to have the occasional character actually AGREE with you ANYway.
And by the way, no matter how badly it does sales-wise, Harts Hope is a friggin' EXcellent book, dude.
posted
"What I observe in this thread is that when you THINK you know what I think, and it disagrees with what you think, THEN you accuse me of being preachy."
Well, no. I dare you to look me in the eye and say that the whole Theresa-lecturing-Bean-and-by-proxy-the-reader scene wasn't preachy.
I think the big difference now is that rather than just making the choice and living the example, your characters nowadays have to explain those choices or have their choices explained to them. At length.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always felt that the Shadow books seemed more "preachy" mostly because they were the first ones were OSC really dealt directly with politics both a significant amount and with pretty much current Earth governments.
Come on Tom, name an OSC book where the choices aren't explained in detail.
*raises hand* Tom, I'm not OSC, but I didn't think that that scene was particularly preachy at all; I seem to recall characters in the past (I'm thinking Moozh or whatever his name was from Homecoming, though I'm not recalling a specific scene, alas) giving similar "lectures" about their views to other characters. It seems like the only time people notice it is when the character's views seem to match OSC's, as Theresa's seem to. What I don't understand is why EVERY character has to disagree with OSC. He's certainly written more about megalomaniacs and child-molesters and what have you than characters who have similar opinions as him. And I agree with Hobbes.
I'm not trying to kiss OSC's butt with fanboyish glee, BTW, since it seems like people get jumped on for agreeing with him. Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't reread my work, so I don't know what scene with Theresa you're talking about. Certainly I don't THINK I ever used Theresa as a surrogate for me, and she certainly did a lot of things that I thought were counterproductive, so she certainly doesn't "stand" for me. But who knows? Maybe you hit upon a scene where a character and I agree! I certainly don't remember.
Still, if anyone was being preachy, it was Theresa, not me.
Not every character is Clint Eastwood. Some of them talk about their feelings and ideas. In fact, there are actually people in the world who ARE preachy, and they're bound to show up in my books along with the strong silent types <grin>.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In starting this thread, I certainly did not mean to imply that your books had gotten worse. I have always enjoyed your work and will continue to do so. But the power they had seemed more visceral, more gut-wrenching, more cathartic. The word I keep coming back to is "raw"- physically and emotionally. Your characters were deeply flawed and even selfish- and yet you could love them even as you rooted for them to fail. And some of that is missing in the later works.
Maybe you're right. Maybe it's me. I'm not 18 and maybe I'm not surprised anymore. But then again, SoTG, I thought, was brilliant and retained some the power I loved in your earlier works. Han Tzu and Alai's rise to power was brilliant. And the heartbreak of the killings perpetrated in the name of Islam.
And most of the time, I *DO* agree with you're moral universe, so I'm not jarred because I am arguing with you. It's just that things jump out at me as being *you* rather than the character's opinions. An example (and it's small and dumb, but it jumped into my head as I wrote this): In Heartfire, John Adams meditates on America- the idea of freedom and hope- and how he was the real thing when Tom Jefferson had only been pretending at being a freedom loving patriot. Then, in SoTG, Peter is thinking about manipulation and getting away with anything when the press loves you and then thinks of how much he learned about hypocritical manipulation from Thomas Jefferson. Small, inconsequential and stupid, I know. But for some reason the same worldview these very *different* characters had about Thomas Jefferson- a man that many people revere and who *seemed* to be a real freedom loving patriot, but who in fact may have been the opposite and simply got away with it because the press, then and now, loved him, not unlike certain political people in our time- was jarring- not because it may not be true, which I'm not really sure of- but because it sounding like two characters were being used as a sounding board to speak about political figures today who are judged as being one thing but are not, but still get away with it because the press loves them.
Then again, you would say (and are probably right) that I am reading too much into what amounts to passing comments that occur in two books. And, as I said, you're probably right. Maybe *I* (and I can only speak for myself, here) have become hypersensitive to *any* even casual agreement between your essays and your novels that might smack of preaching.
And you can't write the same novel twice, it's true. You always reach for something new. And it's unfair, I suppose, for us to keep wanting the same old thing. But having recently reread Seventh Son, Red Prophet, and Prentice Alvin (again), they have a power that is wholely unlike Alvin Journeymen, Heartfire and Crystal City. They are truly mythic. They resonate and end with accomplishment and movement in a way the later books somehow lack. The later books seemed more episodic. Character evolution seemed to have ended.
Ah, but I loved Enchantment. And Ender's Shadow. They, especially Enchantment, were beautiful, in the same way Songmaster, The Homecoming Saga, The Worthing Saga, Wyrms, Hart's Hope, the Ender Series, Treason and Pastwatch were beautiful.
Let me just say thank you and that this was in no way intended as a criticism. It was more an observation through an admittedly biased lens.
But I thank you for creating novels and people I care about deeply, and for illuminating so many aspects of humanity- not once or even twice but dozens of times in numerous settings.
quote:Well, no. I dare you to look me in the eye and say that the whole Theresa-lecturing-Bean-and-by-proxy-the-reader scene wasn't preachy.
Where do I feel like I've heard this before? It's so familiar, I ... I ... I KNOW!
quote:Orson Scott Card, I CHALLENGE THEE!
That's it!
And Hobbes is right that there have often been lengthy explanations of choices in the past. In fact, they are some of my favorite parts of Wyrms, and are why I asked him to send me a copy of it on my mission.
[ March 29, 2005, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I once worked at an advertising agency where we produced a commercial for a mattress store. The spot involved the usual host (who'd been doing these silly commercials for years) appearing in the midst of a ghostly seance where she informed the people around the table about the great new deals on box springs and comforters at her newest mattress superstore!
Lo and behold we got a few letters on that one. Two were posted on the wall: the first, from a conservative christian who thought showing a seance encouraged Satanic, devilish behavior. The other was from a Wiccan who complained that we were making fun of her faith.
The moral? You will never please everyone, and you can always offend everyone, no matter what you say or do.
As for me, I did see a noticeable shift in Unky Orson's language after "Prentice Alvin." I loved the sense of the first three books that I was sitting by a campfire, hearing these people speak their own peculiar dialect. The magic was in the style of the writing, even more than the story itself. From "Journeyman" and beyond, the novels read like any other novel on the shelf, all the charm of that language lost.
I'll miss that unique style, but there you go. Life has a way of going on...
posted
"Where do I feel like I've heard this before? It's so familiar, I ... I ... I KNOW!"
*grin* In my defense, I'd argue that the situations are not exactly analogous. In this case, I'm simply saying that I don't agree with his assessment of his own writing, rather than, say, challenging him to a writing contest.
*laugh*
But, honestly, it never occurred to me that he might not think Theresa was being preachy in that segment; it always felt to me like a John Galt radio moment. Having heard from the horse's pen that he intended it to be a character trait rather than a bit of didactics is going to force me to reassess the scene a bit. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*needs to re-read Enchantment and Hart's Hope*
It's interesting to me that OSC considers Enchantment his best work. However without re-reading those two stick out in my mind for comparison. Enchantment isn't as gory as Hart's Hope but they are both love stories. Enchantment is definitely the more polished palatable story. But I'd still argue that Hart's Hope is the more powerful story of the two. And I read Enchantment first.
In fact, with the exception of the Ender's Game series itself, I've read more of the newer books before most of the older books, partially because the older ones are harder to find. And it is the older ones that leave me going *wow* and pack more punch. Hart's Hope especially.
posted
BTW, I *luved* Enchantment. I am so glad that OSC is interested in doing more romance, 'cause I really like his handling of the subject.
I am not into most romance because it is too cheesy, fluffy, and unsatisfying. But I will take romance from Card any day.
Scott, I will give it as my opinion that one of the things a lot of people have found distasteful in the Shadow series is the strong motivations in Bean and Petra to procreate, and the idea that all humans feel thus. *I* certainly have a strong desire to procreate, but apparently not everyone feels that way and the idea that "everyone does" or "everyone should" bothers them.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff: Wyrms is one of my favorites as well, for exactly the same reason.
Tom: Yeah, I think it was a character trait, dude. Wasn't Theresa some sort of scientist specializing in human communities and reproduction or something? Seems to make sense for her to be concerned with makin' babies.(Anyone have a copy of First Meetings handy? I think that's where I'm remembering it from. *grin*)
Bev: OSC's romances are totally some of the best bits in his books for me; I'm glad he's thinking of writing more in the future too. Did you read Maps in a Mirror? There was a story in there about a guy who traveled back in time to spend a day with an old love, which sounds a little silly but resonated really strongly with me.
posted
Interesting on the Jefferson references. My books ALWAYS reflect my current reading. At the time of Heartfire, though, what I had been reading was a biography of John Quincy Adams, which contained references to his father's attitudes toward Jefferson. But at the time, I still was a complete Jefferson defender.
It was only later, when writing Giant, that I had just read the Chernow biography of Hamilton that laid it all to rest. Getting chapter and verse on how Jefferson manipulated the political destruction of Hamilton, who really WAS what Jefferson only pretended to be (and from an impartial-seeming biographer who had no qualms about showing Hamilton's real defects), ticked me off. So that example was bound to come to mind. I had no idea that there would be any coincidence between Heartfire and Giant.
Here's the thing: In Heartfire, I was showing a character's viewpoint even though it didn't coincide with mine. In Giant, I was drawing on stuff I had learned in a recent book (like the Amaranth in Speaker, which was in a Sci-Am article at the time I was writing it), and supposing (as I often do) that readers have all read what I just read; in that case, I was taking it for granted that this information was available to everyone and the character was simply using it as an example. The Jefferson stuff wasn't the point, it was merely supporting the point.
But I can see why both felt as they did to you.
Ditto on the reproductive drive stuff, Beverly. I mean, the idea that almost all people have a powerful drive toward reproduction is so obvious on its face that it wouldn't cross my mind that anyone would be so oblivious to science as to take this as me soapboxing.
But of course, we do live in such idiotic times that it is actually regarded as a POLITICAL statement to say that humans, like every other successful species, have a drive to procreate that dominates most human activities and trumps most other human preferences.
But you're probably right, Beverly. Though I didn't look on the boards at the time (this stuff came up in Puppets, didn't it? Or was it in Hegemon?), I thought I was writing about characters trying to persuade Bean to have babies despite his desire to put an end to his genetic defect by not reproducing. Therefore those characters would make PRO-reproduction arguments, and since I needed the babies to exist, it was obvious that their arguments would have to prevail over Bean's objections. Duh. It was what the story and the characters' desires required. And since Bean's objections were serious ones that rational and moral people might choose to make, I had to make it persuasive to readers that Bean would believe the arguments against that view.
It's about the story, kids! <grin>
So again I say, those who wish to be irritated will be irritated, but wouldn't it have been much more irritating (and much worse fiction writing) if I had made Bean simply say, "Yeah, Petra, let's do the nasty and make some ankle-biters! Who cares if they die young!"
As for the comments about my older work being more "visceral" and "powerful," absolutely right. Back then, when I wanted to make the reader feel strong emotion, I tortured somebody or resorted to grotesquerie. Since then, I've learned what I think of as subtler and better ways to achieve my purposes. But for some readers, the method WAS the end in itself, so when I stopped using that method, the books lost some of their fire.
Believe me, I can still do that stuff. I'm still proud of coming up with the Sweet Sisters in Hart's Hope and the heads-in-jars in Wyrms. And I'm working on a short story based on a thousand-ideas session we just did here in New Zealand about species on another world that were not just predator-prey in their evolutionary competition, but also had several species following a shepherd strategy, protecting and managing their "flocks." The shepherds had evolved the ability to sense predator-level intelligence at a reasonable distance (presumably magneto-electric brain activity) and so predators evolved the ability to distribute their intelligence and follow other strategies to become invisible to the shepherd species. The results would be extravagantly grotesque ... and highly surprising (and dangerous) to humans when they first visit that planet. It'll be a super-grotesque osc story - because there's a reason for it to be.
But stories like Holy, where I used something gross just because it was gross - hey, don't I get to grow out of youthful things? <grin> After all the years I got ridiculed for torturing my characters, and now I find that I get criticized for NOT torturing them so much any more. Can't win for losing, here.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I say anything else, as a relative newcomer to posting in these forums, let me quote a friend of mine and thereby state the position on which I come from.
"The worst of Orson Scott Card's books is about as good as the best of almost any other author's."
This was a comment made by the man who introduced me to Ender's Game, and one which I wholeheartedly agree with. So please, no one should take anything I might say as any sort of claim that Mr. Card's novels are anything short of masterful.
That said, I have to agree with Ian to some extent. I haven't read the books all chronologically, nor have I read the complete works (though I'm nearing that point), nor did I read them when I was younger, but all in the past four years.
But I have noticed not that the writing is more preachy or stronger/weaker, etc., but that the line between hero/villian and good/evil has become more defined and less grey in the books written more recently than the earlier books. Interestingly, in my readings of other authors I usually find that the polarization of values like this diminishes rather than increasing as time passes. It does seem to me however that many of the decisions characters make in later novels are easier from a moral standpoint, and the decisions are more about finding the best strategies for solving a problem, not about choices between morally grey territory. (I would read through some of the novels to cite examples, but I've already spent too much time on this and I have a sleepy wife awaiting me in our bed.)
Of course, this is only my own reading, and any good book is nearly as much in the mind of the reader as the writer.
I might comment also that in the reading of Mr. Card's columns and essays, I find his political commentary to be rather polarized as well, praising the current presidential administration while demonizing the (admittedly morally corrupt) former. Not to say that most of his points are not valid, but I've not seen much in the way of even mild criticism of the current administration or any sort of mild praise for any choices or decisions of the politicians on the left side of the aisle. And there are definitely good people on both sides, and poor judgement on both sides, all the time.
Naturally, I'm biased in this observation, being a moderate liberal myself (though I'm conservative on many issues). So my view is going to be leftward-leaning, but I personally think I'm as objective as one can be in these observations. Politically, I usually find myself agreeing with Mr. Card's values and priorities but disagreeing with his opinions on who is best able to manage the country in this manner and what the best methods are.
And a side note to Tom: John Galt? While I adore Ayn Rand's writings, the very idea of comparing a heavy-handed philosopher (how many pages is that radio speech?) to the subtle talent of Mr. Card's mastery of storytelling is rather humourous. I don't know that I've ever found anything of Mr. Card's personal philosophies to be even remotely laid out on a platter like that.
Posts: 6 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I WAS aware that Achilles was one of the few flat-out villains that I had ever created, and I consented to that, because there really ARE people in the world - sometimes very powerful people - who are as mad as a hatter or as purely evil as you can imagine a human ever being. Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein - people who regard killing others as nothing, if for any reason it seems desirable.
And in Enchantment, Baba Yaga is such a thorough-going villain in Russian literature, and I had so much fun with her in the semi-comic scenes between her and Bear, that I just didn't try to "explain" her as I did with Beauty in Hart's Hope.
Maybe that's laziness; or maybe that's the result of my feeling that doggone it, after all these years of trying to understand EVERYBODY, maybe I could just write somebody who was really, really bad.
But there's no villain, really, in Magic Street, and I didn't really lean on the old Unmaker so much in Crystal City (though of course from Journeyman on, I think it was, that series now sucks anyway). And I don't think there's anything even approaching a "villain" or a clear line between good and evil in Sarah, Rebekah, or Rachel and Leah.
But the girl in Treasure Box was unrelentingly evil, wouldn't you say? And the bad girl in Homebody. I mean, I've drawn the lines very clearly in some books. And murked them up in others. Depends on what was happening. In Kingsmeat, the whole point was the moral murkiness of the situation, as also in Unaccompanied Sonata. But in Treason, the bad guys are BAD BAD BAD with no attempt, beyond some cursory flim-flam right at the end, to justify their badness. And don't tell me I made Stilson merely a misunderstood well-meaning kid after all ...
posted
I think it was Anne Kate who once applied a quote from your books to you.
quote: "Let me tell you the most beautiful story I know.
A man was given a dog, which he loved very much.
The dog went with him everywhere,
but the man could not teach it to do anything useful.
The dog would not fetch or point,
it would not race or protect or stand watch.
Instead the dog sat near him and regarded him,
always with the same inscrutable expression.
'That's not a dog, it's a wolf,' said the man's wife.
'He alone is faithful to me,' said the man,
and his wife never discussed it with him again.
One day the man took his dog with him into his private airplane
and as they flew over high winter mountains,
the engines failed
and the airplane was torn to shreds among the trees.
The man lay bleeding,
his belly torn open by blades of sheared metal,
steam rising from his organs in the cold air,
but all he could think of was his faithful dog.
Was he alive? Was he hurt?
Imagine his relief when the dog came padding up
and regarded him with that same steady gaze.
After an hour the dog nosed the man's gaping abdomen,
then began pulling out intestines and spleen and liver
and gnawing on them, all the while studying the man's face.
'Thank God,' said the man.
'At least one of us will not starve.'
Of course, we were the dogs. It is not enough that you have 'fed' us emotionally and spiritually all these years. We must yip at your heels and tell you the latest was not up to snuff and 'you must do this'. I don't think any of us truly mean that.
And in restrospect, especially given your explanations (the Jefferson example, for instance, or the plot necessity of having Bean marry and procreate and thus the required convincing that character would need), it seems obvious that I, at least, have become hypersensitive to certain aspects of your fiction. I may have to stop reading your political essays (as OCD as I am about reading your stuff) simply because they interfere with my enjoyment of your fiction. And I would gladly trade one for the other.
But people change. I am a 31 year old divorced father, not some fresh-faced inexperienced 18 year old kid. Obviously the 'baggage' and lens through which I ingest these stories has changed. That said, I didn't enjoy the pain you put people through in your earlier works simply for the pain. But it made their experience more mythological. Kubuki theater comes to mind, exaggerated and clear. There was a line that was balanced well: on the one hand powerful events and extreme consequences, and on the other, realistic characters that were never one thing. (Even the "cursory flim-flam" at the end of Treason was more than just a moral nod of the head. I couldn't believe every single man, woman and child in Anderson was truly evil. But they still had to be stopped and Lanik was the one who paid the price, carrying that burden and guilt, and the scream of the earth, forever. It was morally grey even as it was seen as absolutely necessary. And the girls in Homebody and Treasure Box were truly bad- and I liked them as villains. They worked and the stories worked). But it was that combination that emotionally drained and overwhelmed and uplifted the reader.
I think the "patty-cake with Baby Huey" comments made by critics about your works were rather smug literary reactions to the most visceral (and successful) elements of your novels. I love some of King's work for the same reason. He puts you so fully in the character's skin that you identify with them when the pain comes.
I've always thought of it as putting your heart in a blender and hitting puree. Oh God, but do you feel and hurt- but it means something. It has a purpose. It gives meaning.
And you are not the same person, certainly. You strive to tell different stories. You have different interests, you're older, wiser, more experienced. And you might consider the earlier novels good but excessive. And your stories deal with situations where the danger and violence are more subtle and muted and indirect (though "Pageant Wagon" was also this way as well and it is my absolute favorite of your short stories, so go figure.) (BTW- I never thought the Alvin Maker series had started to suck at Journeyman. It had just changed. )
I guess I should stop now. I would hate to believe that comments like mine had made you decide to stop writing fiction and be frustrated with your fans whom you can't seem to please. For all my 'observations' about differences in style I still buy your work when it comes out (usually that day).
When it comes down to it, your works have been the most influential in my life, with the exception of works of my religion, obviously. As I said before, I came to them young and naive and inexperienced and learned and felt so much. I was changed at my core and my outlook and way of thinking have not been influenced a little by you. In so many ways you articulated things that, up until then, I *believed* but did not really understand enough to see clearly or explain and *know*. I learned about fatherhood and marriage from Ender and Deaver and Nafai and Alvin Sr and Orem's Father. I saw clearly the power of community stories and our allegience to those communities, and how we are all bound together in a great tapestry, even as we sometimes selfishly tear at each other, attempting to 'cut those strings'. I learned about responsibility and goodness and sacrifice, for the good of all. I saw the stories we tell ourselves about our motives, that even evil people tell in their hearts, and the way all of us in our hearts are desperately lonely creatures struggling to be known and loved and to have purpose, to be part of a true crystal city. And I was changed and am changed for it. These eyes and this mind and this heart were changed by your words.
But that doesn't mean that we, as your fans, own you or your work or have a right to tell you what you should write about or how you should do it.
posted
I think this thread has tapped an undercurrent in the collective conscious of the OSC readership. My brother and I were just commenting to each other last summer that some of the later OSC stuff doesn't have that wonderful edge that the earlier work had.
I don't think it's a matter of becoming desensitized to his style. I read both the Homecoming and Alvin Maker series for the first time within the last year, and in both cases felt that the earlier books in those series "had it," while the later ones, while still good, were not the same. E.g. the later books had no moments on the order of Nafai penetrating the dome or Alvin making the living golden plow.
The argument that the newer work is "just different," and that by not being as taken with it I'm really only revealing a preference, also does not ring true. It wasn't torture or grotesquerie that gave the earlier work its power. I don't know what it was, exactly, but it seems to have been more connected to the intricacy and magic of the events and ideas. But that's pretty vague, I know.
I don't think the lesser magnitude of some of the later works are due to ideology shock, preachiness, or underly-ambiguous characters, as discussed above.
I also don't think it's because I'm hungering for the same stories to be told again. For example, the whole Moozh story from Homecoming was very powerful to me, and was quite different from the OSC stories that had impacted me previously (Alvin, Ender, etc.).
I think Geoff is right that OSC still has it in him. Shadow Puppets was, for me, a return to the magic and power of yore. (btw, the comment about Bean/Petra being like Anakin/Amidala was ridiculous). Ender's Shadow also had that edge, but the in-between books weren't quite at the same level.
OSC recently wrote about the need for a great Kennedy-to-the-moon-like mission for non-fossil fuels to be developed before the world runs out of gas. What mission will inspire him to squeeze out all the concentrated "aw350m3" before his gas runs out?
Posts: 13 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Sometimes the magic works." (I forget the origin of this quote, but I know it's from some author or other).
I tend to see the magic contained in the books themselves, not the author. Sometimes the spirit flows through you. Sometimes your words touch someone profoundly, and all you can do is stand back and give thanks. Other times, you do your best but the power didn't quite make the connection with someone else's mind. There's an art, and a craft, that help to be sure. But there also seems to be an inexplicable something, and when it flows, it's lovely. You spend your whole life trying to find it again. But like Narnia, you can't force trying to get there.
I think OSC has been incredibly blessed. The magic has worked often for him and his readers. But it would be a mistake for readers to hold him completely responsible for the Magic.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It feels a little odd to post this on OSC's own forum, so I feel restrained, but I must concur with some of the criticism of OSC's most recent work. I am with Polemic. I am thinking especially of the Shadows series, actually.
I thought "Ender's Shadow" was a brilliant book, absolutely wonderfully and powerfully done, but I was deeply disappointed in all of the following Shadows books. I read them all, I bought them all the minute they came out, but they didn't "do" it for me.
For example, I found the depiction of Peter to be so at odds with everything we knew about Peter up to that point as to be entirely unbelievable. I thought the Peter from EG etc. was a very powerful character. The Peter in the Shadows series is but a pale shadow of the original Peter, and to my mind entirely unconvincing. Never in a thousand years would this kid have taken over the world. The absence of actual grown-ups running the political and military scene is also grossly unrealistic and in fact undermines the whole premise of EG, where the relationship between the adults who run the show, but who need the (genetically enhanced) kids to do the job, using their innate flexibility, creativity, works very well.
But as Aristotle taught in the Ethics: young people are no good at politics, because it's the art of EXPERIENCE, of the knowledge of human nature. Sure, there is the occasional Alexander and Napoleon, but even they were not 12 or 15 when they conquered the world. And they were military men, not political strategists. Most politicians are types like Talleyrand, Bismarck, Disraeli--aged and wise. I bought Peter in EG writing brilliant analysis behind the scenes, but the Peter in the Shadows books couldn't translate those essays into political reality as far as I'm concerned.
I just finished re-reading Speaker of the Dead and if you objectively compare, the later Shadow books just don't get close to that level in terms of maturity, psychological astuteness, plot, making you care. I don't buy the argument that OSC is maturing as a writer, and therefore the later books are better but different. I think that, if you look at the great writers, that there is no clear link between chronology and quality of their works.
I don't believe it has anything to do with OSC losing his magic. Maybe the Shadows books do better with younger readers? I first read EG when I was a teen, and I am close to thirty now, but still loved it when I re-read it recently. I share much of OSC's politics, and I think it's silly to say he's "preaching", so that's not it. Maybe OSC is too prolific lately?
OSC could make us fall in love with a computer program, fear a seven year old boy, shed tears for the possible extinction of an alien species. A writer of such genius should be able to do a lot better than Shadow of the Giant or Shadow of the Hegemon.
I say this as a devoted fan, continual (re-)reader, recommender and buyer of all OSC books!
posted
I think it totally makes sense that those who liked OSC's early books would not like his latter books as much. His style *has* changed--in several ways. And they fell in love with the original style. I imagine there are plenty of others who prefer the latter style. And those who prefer the former might even have nasty things to say about them.
It is true. You can't please everyone.
Keep on doing your best, Scott. I'll keep reading. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I certainly don't think OSC has lost his magic. I'm just saying that sometimes it works between a writer and a reader, and sometimes it doesn't. You can't really control it too much.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is a fascinating topic, if only because I've been pondering the same thing for some time. The word "mythic" resonates with me, but I can't put a finger on what it really means.
In thinking about it, though, I discovered another factor that, for me, greatly affects my attachment to a book: the setting. That seems odd, because I *know* that it's really the characters I'm attached to, but I think it's the same way one gets attached to your home in real life - that's where the people you love are.
I'm drawn to a relatively contained setting - one in which I can sit myself down in a corner and watch the events play out. Battle school had that. The towns of Hatrack, Basilica, Milagre, even Hart's Hope - I felt at home in all of them. Some piece of the magic is lost when the characters are no longer rooted. Peter and Wang Mu, searching for the real power behind congress. Alvin as a journeyman. The entire Shadow series (after Ender's Shadow) jumps from country to country in every chapter.
This is by no means a criticism - some stories have external journeys as well as internal. It just surprised me when I realized that, over time, OSC's stories have tended towards that outward journey. Anyone else feel that way?
Posts: 47 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, I will give it as my opinion that one of the things a lot of people have found distasteful in the Shadow series is the strong motivations in Bean and Petra to procreate, and the idea that all humans feel thus. *I* certainly have a strong desire to procreate, but apparently not everyone feels that way and the idea that "everyone does" or "everyone should" bothers them.
While the theme of “everyone wants to procreate” initially bothered me—it certainly contradicts my world view, and if one checks out the “childfree” community on live journal, I think it becomes abundantly clear that not everyone; wants to make babies”—after thinking about it, I realized that these views did come from the characters. Yes, clearly OSC holds them too. But the books did not preach. Occasionally the characters did, but then I took issue with the character just like I would take issue with anyone who preached at me, not with OSC. Besides, as OSC said, they were all preaching in hopes of convincing Bean to have babies, so it’s not like their pro reproduction stance was particularly forced. And clearly, Bean having babies was incredibly important to the plot.
I adored the Shadow Series, especially SotG, despite my disagreement with some of the views presented, because the story was compelling and the characterization amazing. It might help that I haven’t read any of OSC’s political essays, so although I vaguely know his political views, most don’t jump out at me. The only thing I’ve really noticed throughout the books is the procreation thing, but as I said above, that made sense in context.
Speaking of that, a comment on Achilles: Yes, Achilles is pretty damn crazy evil. But I still think he was a well done character. His insanity seemed real to me. He was not an evil overlord taken straight from a fantasy novel. He was not Voldemort or Sauron. He was charming and ambitious, it’s just that his ambitions were evil and he had that little problem with killing people who saw him weak. His evil fit with the real world. Recently I was the German movie Downfall, which is about Hitler’s last days in Berlin before he killed himself. The movie did a fantastic job as showing Hitler as a human being, without ever letting the audience forget that he was a terrible one. I think OSC achieved something similar with Achilles.
I’m not that well versed in OSC’s writing (yet, though I’m working through my library’s collection as fast as I can), but I have just recently finished both the original Ender’s series and the Shadow series. My feeling on that old v. new comparison was that the older books dealt with larger philosophical themes, and made me think and challenge my views more, they had a larger impact on me. However, the later ones dealt with character so well (I loved the characterization of Peter—I was shocked and thrilled when I realized this character who I had hated from my many reading of EG was turning into a character I loved) that I’m almost as attached to them. The books are different, yes, but I don’t think I can say one type is better than the other.
posted
I've only read the Ender series and the Shadow series, and I like them both about the same. There is a difference in style, but I still love them. Both series have a powerful message, but the Shadow series is more subtle and presented in a very different way. There is no way OSC's style could stay the same after all these years of writing. There are things to love and hate in both series. It all depends on what you like, and the characters you relate to. Good writers can change their writing style depending on their audience and purpose. If they want to write a bedtime story for 3 year olds, it is going to be a totally different style then an autobiography. OSC is a great writer. The characters in his books are different, their beliefs are unique, and his purposs in writing have changed. His style has had to change.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It just seemed to me that you have to look a little harder in the Shadow series to get the whole meaning. The Ender series seemed more open.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You really think there is a more hidden meaning in, say, Shadow of the Hegemon than in, say, Xenocide?
Posts: 64 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not more. SotH was a lot of politics and war, and there is only so much depth in that. Xenocide was completely different, not really more or better (depending on what you like), but still great. There were a lot of topics in Xenocide that allowed for great things to be shown/told. OSC was writing for different reasons, with different knowledge, for different people. I like both series for different reasons. His style has changed. It probably has something to do with his kids getting old, but I'm not him so I don't know.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xenocide was a theological novel of awakening and transformation. Hegemon, a political novel of intrigue and violence. Really different KINDS of fiction. And Children of the Mind is downright metaphysical and cosmological. It's all part of trying not to write the same book twice.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
I doubt many are familiar with the "Skeeve" books but that strikes me as a very slow-evolving series with a never-changing theme. They are getting old.
Posts: 169 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't see LilBee's point that Shadows is more subtle, harder to understand that Speaker/Xenocide. I would think it's rather the reverse. But I confess I'd liked the latter better than the former, so maybe it's just that. Although I don't equate a book more complicated with it being better. I am reading Orwell's HOMAGE TO CATALONIA right now. Absolutely great, but I wouldn't call it estoric or even complicated really....
Posts: 64 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Lucky for me, I still have a few to go of the ones already written.
