That's ok.. take your time. All of us who liked the book (which has sold around a million copies since first publication), have been delusional about it for a couple of decades, now, and are willing to wait with baited breath for your epic takedown to continue. Good on you, in your disagreement of OSC's personal beliefs, to spend so much time and effort hacking away at his most beloved work of fiction. Hey, be careful! I think I saw a guy over there who still has a faint ember of wonder, ignited by this book he read as a child... be sure to stamp that out. Don't want anyone to see art for what it is, without being viewed through the lens of politics and political correctness.
Tony: Thanks for the comment. To address your points:1) A million copies? Wow, that's a whole bunch to sell in almost thirty years. Why that's just a little less than Breaking Dawn sold on the first day! Obviously that indicates that Ender's Game is almost as good as Breaking Dawn, just slower. 2) News flash! Lots of the stuff you liked as a kid was racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise pretty terrible to minorities. "Temple of Doom" was my favorite Indy flick, so I totally understand. Part of growing up and participating in society is recognizing the flaws and inequalities in said society, and how that impacts even the media we consume as children. It's possible to like a thing, to feel nostalgic about it, to recognize the immense impact it's had on your life, and to still recognize that it has problematic elements or messages. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.3) What the hell does it mean to "see art for what it is"? Isn't art typically designed to convey messages? To cause people to think? To say something about the author and how they see the world? I think what you're trying to say is "don't think too deeply or analyze this at all, because we should pretend that art has no depth or subtext whatsoever." Or maybe "only take positive messages from art, or at least, art that I liked as a kid." Sorry, no. 4) It's funny how you think a book that starts each chapter with military personnel disagreeing on recruitment and training, where a recurring plot element is about nations and individuals within the one-world government quietly dissenting from the mandated linguistic and religious norms isn't meant to be looked at "through the lens of politics." 5) Thank you for pulling out the phrase "political correctness." I wasn't entirely sure that you were a complete toolbox, but now I am.
Post a Comment