Subject:
|
Re: How to conduct an interview and not actually listen
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 22:00:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > 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.
Mark the above sentence as "exhibit A"
> Sounds kind of freaky.
It's not "freaky". Really. Trust me. I won't go into why, except to say you
would have to read it, and accept the premises.
> I've never been much of a novel reader so I'll
> probably never get to it.
That's unfortunate. I suspect that these novels would not translate well to
cinema, at least not in the current climate. You haven't read Starship
Troopers either I suspect but that is my prime example of a profound and
subtle book that gets turned into a movie that totally misses the point and
which has no redeeming value whatever (except for the nudity in the shower
scene, but I digress (that was a joke, son) ).
> But I imagine the author's choice to use little
> tykes as protagonists serves his commentary on modern societal values (or
> lack of)?
Well, I suspect you may be falling into the same trap Ms. M did (although
not as badly). I don't see what Card wrote as being any sort of commentary
on modern values at all. It's more of a posing of a moral dilemna than it is
a commentary. Modern values don't enter into it one bit.
You have to be willing to grant that not everyone else necessarily has an
agenda to push with everything they do in order to see it, though. Ms. M,
apparently, doesn't buy that, or doesn't believe it's the case here. She (as
do I as well sometimes) sees everything through her glasses, which are
colored by her belief system and little else.
Ultimately, Card doesn't answer the dilemna either, at least not
unambiguously. (that's because he's not pushing an agenda, just posing a
very interesting question) You are left (at the end of all the series) with
several different viewpoints and depending on how you look at it, the adults
who did what they did to the kids are terrible villains or great heros. As
are the kids themselves.
But to Card's credit I think he succeeds, more or less, at divorcing much of
his own beliefs from his work. He's profoundly Mormon and hence profoundly
Christian, but many of his protagonists are at best agnostics. (not all,
mind you, of course... consider Saints, which after all is about the Mormon
Diaspora, but it's a bit of a departure from the rest of his work, it's the
only historical fiction I think)
Would that Ms. M could do the same. She apparently cannot... hence my scorn.
> > 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.
>
> "South Park" is that way, I think. A good mixture of social commentary and
> fart jokes.
South Park, ultimately, is trying to be funny (entertaining). Making you
think is a bonus, and not a necessary one to the success of it.
The Ender saga, ultimately, is trying to make you think. Being entertaining
is a bonus (although a necessary one, else you wouldn't stick with it). Big
big difference I feel.
> > 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?
>
> Is he going after the notion of "Desperate times call for desparate
> measures?" That can be an altruistic notion in and of itself, I think. But
> when it gets confounded with politics, rather than the basic biological need
> to survive, then the notion becomes suspect.
Yes he is going after that notion at the most basic level. In this case
politics play only a secondary role. (at least in the first book)
Fundamentally its a matter of racial survival. Us or them. Literally. There
apparently are no other choices. (you may argue it's a contrived situation,
but you have to grant the premises that authors ask you to grant while you
are in context... you can later criticise those premises as unrealistic if
you like, but while "in story" the premises are what they are.. mark that as
"exhibit B")
> > 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.
>
> Well, there are similar situations in the world today. I know we've got into
> this before, but the situation with the Palistinians comes to mind. Is it
> right for Palistinians to teach their kids to resist and rise up against the
> Israeli occupation? Is it right for the Israelis teach their kids that
> Israel/Palistine is the exclusive home of the Jews (European and otherwise)?
> If the issue is brainwashing, who is the bigger brainwasher? Well, you know
> what I think...
>
> What if California were invaded by China (the Chinese claim right to the
> land because their ancestors worked on the railroads and mines)? Of course
> America would resist and there'd be bloody war. If it dragged on, would it
> be right to teach our kids that California belongs to America and we should
> fight to get it back? Should we surrender and let China have California?
> Where do all the Californians go? Do Californian children "become Chinese"
> and start singing the Chinese national anthem? How far does it or should it
> go as far as using children for political or societal causes?
Good questions. Not that far in this case, I think many would agree. But we
and the Chinese are the same species and apparently can communicate and can
negotiate. (although you have to wonder about some of our groups sometimes).
Card has deliberately set things up (remember those premises) as different,
vastly different.
> I'm for leaving children completely OUT of politics (and religion),
> especially avoiding nationalism and ethnocentrism, until they can reason and
> decide entirely for themselves what they what to be and do. It is very easy
> to mislead and manipulate children for corrupt purposes.
I agree. And I still do after reading the book. But (back to those premises
again, and exhibit "A", above) Card has set things up that if you choose
that course, it's goodbye humanity. All of us. We can't even choose the
course of accomodation rather than going down fighting, as that choice is
not available. At the beginning, we are losing, badly, and it is obvious
that only by using these enhanced children can we win, for they bring
something special to the table.
Or so it seems to all involved.
I can't say that I would have not chosen to compromise my principles in
order to survive. I can't say I am that strong, I want to live. I suspect
most of us would decide the same way. I think Card would but to his credit,
he didn't say one way or the other. And THAT is why he is a better writer
than Ms. M.
++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
|
|
|
|
