|
I know for a fact Collision is a Flophouse fan but I don't know if J has ever said anything about it.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
New episode up now. It's loving Ender's Game. RIP J.W. and Chris.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
inb4 a buncha goons stunting about how they totally didn't like it in high school Nerdo, we all know you did
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:inb4 a buncha goons stunting about how they totally didn't like it in high school jokes on you motherfucker, i didn't read books in high school
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:44
|
|
|
Alaois posted:jokes on you motherfucker, i didn't read books in high school poo poo you're cool I'll go see if I can find my old locker to stuff myself into
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
I read a book by Orson Scott Card in high school but it wasn't Ender's Game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:inb4 a buncha goons stunting about how they totally didn't like it in high school I read the entire series when I was ~9 and I think it messed with me a little. I also think I rented Wyrms from the library around the same age, which is a fantasy book in which a mystical worm lures a 15 y/o virgin to him telepathically so it can rape her and impregnate her with Jesus. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
I somehow dodged the bullet on Ender's Game, should I read it? It's only 324 pages. I know you're Not Supposed to Read the Book, but I really enjoyed RPO for the exact reason J did: it's fun to scoff at dumb bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
padijun posted:I somehow dodged the bullet on Ender's Game, should I read it? It's only 324 pages. I know you're Not Supposed to Read the Book, but I really enjoyed RPO for the exact reason J did: it's fun to scoff at dumb bullshit Read the short story it's based on
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Read Ender's Game, then read the essay(ies) "Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman" or "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality", then re-read the book and be horrified at how creepy the book is. Gives you an interesting perspective on how insidious fascist strains of thought can be. edit: I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I'm really glad they linked to "Innocent Killer". Excited to listen now. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
padijun posted:I somehow dodged the bullet on Ender's Game, should I read it? It's only 324 pages. I know you're Not Supposed to Read the Book, but I really enjoyed RPO for the exact reason J did: it's fun to scoff at dumb bullshit No. It's not even good, "you're the chosen one," escapist fiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:Read Ender's Game, then read the essay(ies) "Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman" or "Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality", then re-read the book and be horrified at how creepy the book is. Or you could just not read it twice
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
ManMythLegend posted:No. It's not even good, "you're the chosen one," escapist fiction. the point is it's not good like batman vs superman was a poo poo of a movie, but I got a lot of enjoyment out of it because snyder thought that merking jimmy olson in scene 1 was a what the fans wanted to see. the martha/martha part put me in an honest-to-god good mood with how dumb it was
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
I never read Ender's Game, but I did try to lead a "communist rebellion" against my English teacher after we read The Fountainhead. I was an entirely different sort of insufferable nerd in high school!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Improbable Lobster posted:Or you could just not read it twice that too. I like to hate-read though 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:03
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:"Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman" Is this the one written by a crazy Joss Whedon fan who accused Card of being an actual literal Nazi or a Hitler fanboy? Because even Jay found that to be exaggerating things, and he loving hated the book and Card.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
If you are gonna hate read, ender's game will go down easier than most and it's not too long so you can do worse, just get a used copy because otherwise Card will get your pennies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Is this the one written by a crazy Joss Whedon fan who accused Card of being an actual literal Nazi or a Hitler fanboy? Because even Jay found that to be exaggerating things, and he loving hated the book and Card. I don't know much about the authors background honestly (though I doubt the Joss Whedon bit since the essay is from 1987) but it doesn't call Card a literal nazi. It's mostly guilty of overstating its points because it's an amateur essay by a non-critic It has flaws, but it was the first essay to criticize Card at a time when every sci-fi publication was singing the praises of the novel. Coming from an unknown female writer during the most chauvinistic era of sci-fi, that's pretty impressive. Grain of salt, and the Innocent Killer essay is more scholarly (I recommended Ender and Hitler first since it's a easier read), but it's still thought-provoking and worth a read Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 09:43 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
I am wondering if the idea that Ender's genocide of the "buggers" was actually intended to be a tragedy of manipulation and misinformation, and the hosts just either completely missed it, or if they ignored that, or it just didn't hit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
I read pretty much nothing but a ton of scifi and fantasy in high school but somehow I've never read Ender's Game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
Spark That Bled posted:I am wondering if the idea that Ender's genocide of the "buggers" was actually intended to be a tragedy of manipulation and misinformation, and the hosts just either completely missed it, or if they ignored that, or it just didn't hit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Sham bam bamina! posted:It absolutely was. Yeah it is. This is not a great episode because of stuff like this. They also talk about the "hurt someone so badly they cannot strike back" was something the book thought was a good thing when the book takes pains to show the consequences. I don't think Ender's Game is a great book but they are really whiffing hard on some of their reads. For a book that they complain explains everything to much they seem to have missed the overt clunky explanation of how this has all been a tragic farce. I don't want to throw this criticism at the podcast specifically but I think that in light of Card's very visible and horrible homophobia people fall over themselves to reinterpret his works to mean things they don't really mean. In the case of Ender's Game they often do so in defiance of the the books overtly stated themes. Which are stated very clearly and clunkily because it is (and always was in spite of what they claim in the podcast for some reason) a YA book. There is already super offensive poo poo in that book you don't have to invent. Like the book's proof that the futuristic society is post racial being that Ender calls a black kid the N-word and the black kid is not offended. Sam Sanskrit fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Your way works too posted:There is already super offensive poo poo in that book you don't have to invent. Like the book's proof that the futuristic society is post racial being that Ender calls a black kid the N-word and the black kid is not offended. Holy poo poo I don't remember this at all. Anyone have the book around to quote it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
I may be misinterpreting Card's intention with it (ironically) but I think that's the idea. Here it is:quote:“Let’s freeze a few,” Alai said. “Let’s have our first war. Us against them.” In any case it's a really weird moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Man how in the hell did I not remember that? It's insanely egregious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
You don't think it's weird that the book falls over itself to excuse every action of a cold, calculating sociopath 6 year old, who literally kicks 2 children to death and faces no real consequences? Then when this sociopath commits genocide, we are supposed to feel sorry for him? It's a creepy, manipulative book with a agenda. Edit: also, the critique of the book as genocide apologia came way before Card was outed as a crazy homophobe. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 23:42 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:You don't think it's weird that the book falls over itself to excuse every action of a cold, calculating sociopath 6 year old, who literally kicks 2 children to death and faces no real consequences? You can say that the hypothetical question it crafts by protecting him from direct culpability of the genocide (although I would point out that Ender himself does not see himself as blameless) is not worthwhile or/and even irresponsible. However it is explicitly an anti-genocide book and I have issues with people trying to twist it's obvious and stated message into one that is the opposite. Like for what it is worth I do think that the narrative voice of the book does not really hold Ender responsible and blames those nasty adults for everything but it also calls out what has occurred as an atrocity. I think that Card's religious mind frame is pretty obvious near the end as well. Ender has sinned but can redeemed by atonement and starting to make things right by finding the Buggers a new home to start again. Now the idea that a person can be redeemed from a sin as large a genocide by guilt and good deeds is a boondoggle but I don't think that is meant to imply the genocide was anything less then genocide. Sam Sanskrit fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:You don't think it's weird that the book falls over itself to excuse every action of a cold, calculating sociopath 6 year old, who literally kicks 2 children to death and faces no real consequences? It could also be said that Ender facing no real consequences for killing two children could also be a signpost that these people would also help Ender's genocide at the end. But that's probably putting too much thought into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Doesn't Card have some weird belief that intent is more morally important than the consequence? Or basically that the "means" justify the "ends" vs the other way around? Though maybe I'm just remembering the argument in the Innocent Killer essay. I liked the book in Middle School, and I still enjoy aspects of the book (I remember it feeling very eerie and brutal?) but unfortunately I also read the sequels where Ender becomes a spokesman for extinct civilizations or some poo poo and they were total trash. Oh oh yeah, and the bit with Ender finding the Bugger eggs/queen? at the end was a revised ending Card wrote when he started writing the sequels. Crocobile fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Crocobile posted:Doesn't Card have some weird belief that intent is more morally important than the consequence? Or basically that the "means" justify the "ends" vs the other way around? If he did it wouldn't really have much application to the book since the genocide that occurs is a farce. The whole thing happens because of a misunderstanding and there is no positive gain or "end". I suppose it could be relevant to the kids he kills I guess but I got the impression that they are just part of the guilt he assumes at the end of the book. I dunno. I don't really know what to make of those kids outside of as plot devices. Sam Sanskrit fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
I don't think it is advocating for genocide, and I don't think anyone does say that, but it offers a weak-rear end handwaving of it. Which, to be fair, is probably the theological point of the novel, but gently caress that point of view tbh. edit: also, the speaker of the dead thing is a direct reference to the Mormon tradition of going through Holocaust victim lists and posthumously baptizing them as Mormon. As a jew, that is beyond reprehensible. Edit2: I'm very, very biased against the religious institution of mormonism, to be completely clear here. Card, in my mind, parrots their most offensive beliefs. Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
Crocobile posted:Doesn't Card have some weird belief that intent is more morally important than the consequence? Or basically that the "means" justify the "ends" vs the other way around? Card has said as much in interviews, and it does show up in Kessel's essay too. Also, I didn't get the feeling from the episode that they were missing the tragedy, no more than the essay does either. It is tragic, but the tragedy in the book is that Ender has to go through this experience, not that an alien race is exterminated. I don't think Card wrote it deliberately that way, but it's got that teenage myopia where the worst thing in the world is something that makes you feel bad. I think Collision's stance on sci-fi is harsh, but he's got a good point about how juvenile it is to have a book about genocide that focuses on how bad the guy who dropped the bomb feels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Crocobile posted:Doesn't Card have some weird belief that intent is more morally important than the consequence? Or basically that the "means" justify the "ends" vs the other way around? In which not being a ethical consequentialist is now a "weird belief"
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
say what you will about this episode but i completely lost it at genocide cuts both ways, fartknocker
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Honestly that's what bothers me most about the Ender Hitler essay Non-consequentialist ethical frameworks exist, and people believe them without being monsters. Read a book, nerdo. EDIT: Though it's been a while, so I might be misremembering. Googling mostly turns up dead links.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Djeser posted:Card has said as much in interviews, and it does show up in Kessel's essay too. I was under the impression that the novel was supposed to be about how militarism can dehumanize and other their enemies, and the detachment from death that remote warfare (drones, anybody) can cause. That these people saw in Ender someone who would kill without compunction, somebody who was useful to their aims of extermination. I get the impression now that Card didn't do a good job at conveying this, or is that wrong too?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
The Vosgian Beast posted:Honestly that's what bothers me most about the Ender Hitler essay That's not what the essay claims. It's entirely focused on the questionable ethics of the book in question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
For reference, here's Elaine Radford's article Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman, and here's John Kessel's Creating the Innocent Killer: Ender's Game, Intention, and Morality. I've only skimmed Radford's article but Kessel mentions that he himself isn't a consequentialist; he thinks intentions matter, but he argues that in Ender's Game only intentions matter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Famethrowa posted:That's not what the essay claims. It's entirely focused on the questionable ethics of the book in question. quote:The doctrine that the morality of an action is solely determined by the actor’s motive rests on a significant assumption: that the good always know what their motives are, and are never moved to do things for selfish reasons while yet thinking themselves moved by virtue I internet archived it and this quote in particular is some bullshit Sorry, no
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
John Kessel posted:A number of people have objected to this essay on the grounds that intentions do make a difference in our judgments of the degree of culpability we assign to an actor performing any action. I did not mean to give the impression that I believe that intention is irrelevant to judging whether an action is moral. We normally take intentions into account when making such judgments. I do, too. To judge only by results would be cruel and rigid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 01:42
|
|