Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 19:50:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
253 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> Pretty sorry stuff as far the interviewer goes. She needs to get her head
> out of...
>
> As far as the author, Mr. Card, I have no clue who he is but judging from
> the explanations of some of his stories, the guy is either a complete
> nutcase or total comic genius! Six year old heroes roaming around and
> battling in space, toddlers eating each other for food... sounds like grave
> social commentary or an awesome "South Park" episode!
_Ender's Game_ isn't intended as (nor does it come off as) comedy.
You'd have to actually read the book(1) to see why the premise of child
warriors, in context, isn't nutty at all. The author does a pretty good job
of setting the stage for why there is a clearcut need to use small children
(who have been genetically modified, as it turns out) to combat a menace
that apparently is bent on exterminating the entire human race across all
the planets we have so far colonized and apparently has zero interest in
even communicating, much less negotiating about it.
As said by others in the thread, it's a gripping read and will very likely
make you think about a number of deep and important things, as well as being
entertaining in its own right to many readers. YMMV of course.
One of the big questions that Card poses and then doesn't answer to my
satisfaction in the book or any of the 3 sequels and 2 parallel (different
viewpoint) books is this:
Is it OK to do what the authorities did to these kids in order to save the race?
I don't know the answer either. It *IS* a situation where rights based
calculus does seem to break down. These kids have rights, but are too young
to be asked to volunteer because they can't understand what they are
volunteering for, and it's not clear that parents have the right to
volunteer them either.
The reviewer pretty much missed this question because she wanted to focus on
less important, and less fundamental ones, IMHO.
1 - or someone would have to spend many paragraphs explaining the context,
so many that it might spoil the book for those who haven't yet read it... in
fact I fear I may have went a bit close to that edge already.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
