Ender's Game Discussion

Feel Free to post anything and everything about the book.  If you have not finished the book...this thread will have many spoilers so read on at your own risk.

I will let somebody be first to post their impresisons of the book and jump into the discussion later :)

okay now that i have a minute i can write down at least one of my thoughts. From what i read a person traveling out and a person staying on earth would separate in age...the person going out would turn 1 year older while the person who stayed would turn ~10 years older for example. The actual time difference isn't as important as that there is a difference. My point of contention is the communication devise that allows them to communicate instantly anywhere. If a person is constantly talking on that device (a span of time) and moving out on a ship (like the advance force)the age difference would be impossible. The conversation would not be possible because they exist in two separate times (do not read time zones that is different, this is time "speeds"). The only way they could make this work is if they introduce time "travel" in future books and that opens up all kinds of worms (pun maybe intended :)) Anyway i thought a lot about the time space dynamic of this book and was punching holes left and right. this does not detract all all from my enjoyment of the book. I loved the overall story and characters. Anybody else get hung up on the time/space issue or just not care at all?

@Ruwund: It's based on the philotic connection, like the ones that the Buggers have. It's like a hive-mind mind link, so it doesn't matter about what time or space there is between them. The age difference with things like Mazer Rackham being flown out for 80 years in a ship going faster than light and coming back has to do with the faster than light travel and the relativistic changes occuring because of that. I don't understand it. Card never elaborates too much on it because of the fact that it doesn't seem to exist, so far as we know. I loved the book. Ender is my favorite character because he is brilliant, not because he is the main character of the book. Bean comes in as a close second also because he is a genius, and you really get to know Bean more in "Ender's Shadow" and "Shadow of the Hegemon." But, this book is a fantastic read and always gets me thinking, a lot. It somehow changes my thought processes for a while after reading it. I enjoyed the Battle School concept. It would be something that had it been real, I would've been willing to go to. Training exceptional children to help the world is a great idea, even though I disapprove of Graff's methods. Was anyone else shocked when they found out Stilson died? I knew Bonzo was hosed from the second he decided to fight Ender, but I remember the first time I read it I was absolutely horrified to find out that Ender had killed Stilson at 6. One thing I would like explained is how the final fleet got in range to destroy the Bugger Homeworld. I could never really figure out the details, cause I would've assumed that the Bugger fleet would have torn apart the much smaller human force. But Ender through his forces into the center of them and next thing I knew, the planet was blown up and he had saved the world. I also would like to know what others think about the theory of the Battle School. Would something like that be a good move if the world was faced with an alien menace? Maybe even just a nation, would testing and taking kids who are exceptional and turning them into the greatest commanders we have ever known be a good idea? I have oftentimes wondered if the military has considered doing something like this, maybe with the children of career officers or something. All in all, my brain is just jumping from one thought to the next and I can't post an adequate review, so I'll end my personal remarks here, and maybe join in some discussion.

Rag, i understand what they tried to do with communication and the faster than light travel...they just didn't pull it off. The time it takes me to say watermelon would be the same time for somebody to hear me say watermelon. If two people are operating at two different "speeds" of time the word would be stretched out really long waaaattttttteeeeeerrrrrrrrmmmmmmmeeeeeeeellllllooooooonnnnnnnn or extremely fast like wtrmln. Think of a track of music that is sped up. This would be impossible to happen at once. so...either they can have the faster than speed of light travel without instantly communicating while doing it or they can have instant communication without the faster than light speed of travel. Also i would say the closest we (our world) has had to battle school would be the spartan lifestyle. Their are some native american tribes that come close as well. Spartans were brutal to their offspring in the hope to make them stronger and superior to every other city state. I believe Japan also did it in feudal times to a certain degree. I was not shocked about the kid deaths...i don't really know what that says about me tho.....lol

But the way the philotic connection works is it's like being right next to someone. If I were to say "watermelon" next to you, I'd be saying "watermelon" in the time it takes me to say watermelon. It's like me being in your brain at the same time as you are in your brain, that's the way the buggers system works, which is how the operated with the ansible. It's like talking into the exact same microphone, only you're not. He didn't use the ansible much because of how tricky it was, except in the ending battle sequences. It's like playing a video game. You see what I do in GW2 as I do it, because of our server connection. Same with the ansible network.

I'll be honest, I did not really think about the issues with the ansible. I think I just went along with it because Card did not try to go into detail and explain it scientifically. @Ragmar: I was surprised by Stilson's death too. I was not surprised when they said he was in the hospital at the beginning, but I did not expect that he actually died. I was also surprised that the last battle was not a simulation. Looking back it seems more obvious, but when reading it I just did not see it coming.

The way i understood the ansible is that it was a machine that would make the conversation heard via speakers and not make everybody hive mind"ish" like the philotic connection. for instance the philotic connection is like just having knowledge the instant it happens instantly. the way i understood the ansible is that it was just a machine that allowed our communication to be carried on without delay. That is the rub. if it were true philotic ender would not have had to give any orders verbally...he would just see a situation and it would be know to his commanders. This is not, however, how it happened.

It makes a lot more sense if you read the "sequels," starting with Speaker for the Dead.

So what did people think of Ender's Brother? A monster who ends up controlling the world and it didn't turn out to be horrible (or they didn't tell us much about his reign as king of the world). Did he control the beast within with reasoning (his quite high I.Q.) or was the monster just a facade? Ender does write out his life at the end of the book and it seems like he didn't turn into a hitler/stalin/mao type leader.

It says in the book that Peter grew up a bit. I wasn't surprised one bit though. Ender was almost exactly like Peter, only not as brutal, just like he wasn't as soft as Valentine. The three of them, had they worked together, probably could have taken over the world much faster than Peter did with Valentine on himself. Also, any one of them could have defeated the Buggers, had Peter not been too vicious and Valentine too passive.

I love this story. My favorite parts of the book are Ender coming against others in contest, figuring creative ways to beat them. It was discovering how intelligent Ender was in conquering his foes that is the magic for me. The dynamic training events that Ender just keeps getting better at, against worse and worse odds. The twist at the End with his training being an actual attack on the Buggers blew me away when I first read the book. As a teenager I didn't see it coming. I love this book! What about this novel do you guys and girls find most appealing?

Ender's way of dealing with changing situations that were being thrown at him in the battle room always came to mind whenever Fog would yell "Set up Pandora!" in Warhammer :)

I've discovered the physics Card was trying to reference for the faster than light travel, and the principle he used to make Mazer Rackham live much longer than he should have. It relates to special relativity. I can't explain it to you, but I think that's what Card was going for. I just learned about it in my physics class, and I can't quite wrap my head around it.

I got that rag...my thoughts were that they couldn't have both at the same time. One would supersede the other or make it impossible to some degree. I think star trek talked about communications inside warp and how they could only communicate with those inside their warp field but could not communicate with those outside it......something to this effect. The only way i can see for them to both be used you would inadvertently be opening up a "time travel" discussion. Anyway..its not even a major thing in the book but just something that i found interesting as a side note. The morality questions this book are the major talking pieces i think. what would you do to save the human race??? what would you NOT do?

Defending ones home, family, humanrace from an unprovoked attack? I would do anything that is within my moral code of warfare. I look to WW1 and 2 as models for when to go to war and when not to. I also look to those wars knowing we were hesistant to get in...but when we did it was all out. No consideration for collateral damage. We went for the most critical organs of Japan in WW2. It humbled the Japanese, they knew they were the aggressors and what happned to them was just. They knew it in there hearts, they were humbled and defeated. Threat gone. So, in thought, drag your feet into a fight with a heavy heart, trying every other avanue to avert war. But when you come out swinging, go for the jugular and be done with it. In Enders game I feel the human race was justified in what they did having no other knowledge of the aliens intentions except to destroy the human race. There was no line of communication and all the humans knew were that the Buggers were trying to kill every man woman and child. They were justified in what they did in the end, though if another way was possible they couldn't take the risk or know the way to do it. The human race was not the aggresors, and they were forced into survival. The Buggers knowing they were the aggresors with the other books in the series, IMO knew the humans were justified in what they did. Justice is a fine line, but somewhere in the human soul is a knowledge of when you are justified in a thing. Its coming to grips with what must be done, what you are willing to do, or not to do, to accomplish victory. The moralality issue of the book is a great topic, forcing me to revisit what I am willing to do to protect my family. I take no joy in those thoughts, but at least I have an idea what our soldiers must go through when I take that exercize of thought and internalization. It also helps me form my political views concerning war as well. I pray for the day when civilization can beat their swords into plows, but until the hearts of Men and Women do not have violence in them, I will retain the tools necessary to defend myself and my family and say that society has the right to exsist and defend themselves as well. How did you like that run on sentence?

i like your thoughts cliff :). I think you actually touched on another question also and that question is far more deep. What would you do to protect the human race from a "perceived" threat. I agree with your overall answer to this question more or less.....but i can see where others would take the opposite view that humans became the aggressors in the 3rd attack and therefore the buggers and now justified to retaliate.... anyway...nice post cliff. If conflict resolution were easy we would not be living in a war torn world.

One interesting question that the book raises is that the bugs knew we were coming for them. They knew and they could not stop us, and they sort of accepted their end because of what they did. The big moral question in this book for me is not what would you do to defend humanity, but if you would accept your fate knowing that you caused it? Humanity is guilt of the same choices made by the bugs when they encountered humankind in the first war. We did this over and over during the ages. The only thing is, it never came back to bite us, at least not yet. Other interesting point is that they have to cheat Ender into a win. Because, if he knew exactly what he was doing, the decision probably would be diferent. It's even more interesting when you consider that they had to train a commander to take that very exact decision. We do not seem to be prepared to take steps to exterminate another enemy, we take pity on them if they seem defeated. They needed to create a being ruthless enough to do that, but if they did probably they would end up with a monster worse than the bugs, so they cheated. The problem comes when we look to our own reality, when we see that many things that we do right now look at that last decision that Ender did, without knowing, and make it a conscious decision that we do with full awareness. Humanity should be afraid of the desire to obliterate an enemy, however, each day, more and more, we accept the ideia of completly eliminating whatever is diferent and that we don't understand.

I thought it interesting that the brother (ruled as to "evil") and the sister (ruled as too "soft") both ended up going in the opposite direction and were very similar to Ender in the end.

So, I have seen a lot about what Ender has to do to prepare for and then execute and finish the war. These all relate to the moral question of what are you prepared to do to 'The Enemy'. What about the other half of the moral dilemma? What are you prepared to do to make the winning tool/weapon? What of the combat schools commander and his orders to make the perfect weapon of his students. While the planet buster bomb is just a super upgrade of modern nuclear weapons, how far should we go to make the perfect soldiers. What moral standard do we hold them up to? Is it even possible to expect their morality to match that of 'normal' people? Can we breed warriors and are their families acceptable collateral damage? Could we take children and teach them to be combatants? I may be wrong but it appears to me that the true reason for the combat school is because the command structure knew that they could not devise a winning strategy. Therefore, they took children (with fewer limitations on their imaginations) removed all moral limiters (and replaced them with the single moral imperative, 'Win at all Costs') and then placed them in an incredibly stressful environment as an experiment that must not fail. In effect the children that did not survive or were damaged during this train were collateral damage of the war effort. Do we have the right to do this to 'children' or any human, even if the war is a war of genocide?

Very intresting Snazz. I hadn't considered what role children should play in combat. In Enders game there was no gore, no horrific scene to haunt your through your life. It made reading the stressfull enviromment tolerable for me. It was demanding, stressfull, and I am sure there was collateral damage. Some children would not be able to develope the neccessary defence mechanisms to handle that stress. Adults have a hard time handling that type of stress. I think that choice would require every parents, every childs consent. At anypoint the child would need to be able to quit if breaking under the pressure. Of course its hypothetical and I know from experience that adults are just as if not more creative than there youthfull selves. My imagination for instance goes and goes, it wasn't the same as a child. I like to think I can think out of the box, analyzing things better than I ever could have as a youth, even with awesome training to do so. So in Enders Game they used youth, made for a neat story. In real life I wouldn't be able to tolerate this. I believe in training youth to defend themselves and those around them. But not in a military type academy as in Enders game at such a young age. I wouldn't do it, and would against that. I did ROTC in highschool and that was for fun. I enjoyed the drills, weapon training, ropelling and high adventure stuff we got to do. I also enjoyed learning military structure and proper channels of rank/structure. It was benign for me. Low stress, as drilling is just marching in synchrinization, following commands in sync. Its cool to be a part of. I don't know at what age training soldiers is appropriate, but much like all education it needs to be age appropriate.

As to premptive strike...neutralizing a threat before it can do damage. I have come over the years with much thought about it. I was a supporter of the thought when I lived in fear. I just don't trust my government to make those calls anymore. If I had perfect trust in their judgement and assessment of the situation I could allow for it. Knowing that it was a clear and imminent threat against an unprovoked attack. Since government has lost that trust with me, I can not justify it. I can't know the thoughts and intentions of my own government. Its frustrating to say the least. So I have come to the conclusion that not just a threat warrants an attack, but an acutal move of war/aggresion must be made. It needs to be in my face relevant. I need absolute proof that we NEED to be at war. So in conclusion, if I could trust the people pulling the premptive lever, as defined as the threat is real, can be carried out, the intent is overwhelming...etc...then yah I would be ok with it. It gets into that movie with Tom Cruise in Minority Report. When is it ok...when it works 100% of the time, no mistakes made. If a mistake is possible and made then that trust is 100% gone. The end. :)

i was telling my grandfather about this book and he brought up an old twilight zone episode that had a fighter pilot doing some pretty amazing stuff. The pilot, though, during the last mission of the show was a little slow to get another plane and that plane got away. The pilot took a lot of criticism about letting the plane get away so at the end of the show you hear his monologue of wow, maybe I am getting too old for this stuff. I am losing my edge. I mean i am almost 9. roll credits.... Also, using and training kids in extreme warfare situations has been done already in reality. most of the time we "modern" times people look back and say how barbaric, but if you looked at all the people groups of that time they wouldn't say any such thing. It was normal for them. Society dictates a what a lot of people feel and society is ever changing....who is to say 100 years from now Enders game is a blueprint and not just some fictional work....

Finally read the book last night after being bugged about it *pokes tongue out at Jase* - picked it up at about 10pm, down at 4am. Most of my thoughts have been previously mentioned by people above. I can relate to most of them. But let me summarise: OVERALL I enjoyed the book, more than I thought I probably would. I'm not a fan of war type stories at all - they depress me too much. But I found this presented in a way that was more thought provoking and challenging rather than overtly about war and the terrible costs it inflicts. Because it was pretty much all done from a 3rd person standpoint. Sure, Ender was the one who was being trained and all, but there was no actual fighting of the enemy right in front of you - it was presented as hypothetical battles, virtual strategies. It was a very interesting take on the development of winning tactics. It started off as trial and error with no casualties, but once Ender got to the Command base that was gone, though we didn't know it and neither did he. That detached feeling - of observing the pieces moving about, of patterns, maneuvers and solving puzzles - without the gritty and dark reality of combat, resonated well with me. It proved to be a perfect vessel to show the development of the story, the desperation obviously present which caused them to turn to children - who are not yet molded by societal pressure into what should and should not be thought and felt, etc - to discover new ways to do things and new ideas to use, which the young are more easily able to adapt to and with. The story took children and turned them into adults well before their age, with the responsibility of the war on their shoulders, but they did it in a way that made use of the fact that they WERE children - using games to teach and eventually as the weapon itself. ON MORALITY As for what I would or would not do if this situation were real ... I honestly don't know. The story never once made me think that they were going too far with the kids' training - keeping it all in the context of 'desperate times call for desperate measures' but those measures seemed reasonable. There was no physical abuse of the kids (except from other kids, and that's sadly always there when there are bullies) and even the emotional manipulation seemed controlled and worked well to hone them. So I guess in the context of 'fighting for humanity' I would approve of what they did. But ... I am not entirely sure they did all they could have done to try and communicate with the Buggers to find out their intentions before taking the fight to their homeworld. As Ender said once in the book, what if they had no plans to attack again? Why chase down an enemy who seems to have no intention of continuing the fight? They withdrew because they realised they were killing an intelligent lifeform. They fought, they lost, they withdrew. Was chasing them down just an act of fear? Of retribution? How much effort had been put into trying to communicate after the Buggers withdrew? With the comments at the end, it would seem that they would have more than welcomed the possibility of interaction, but the chance wasn't given. They understood their mistake and felt, out of guilt, that the humans had the right to retaliate. But how much different could things have been if mercy and restraint were shown instead? All these things rattle about in my brain, but I am a pacifist at heart I think, and would do anything to avoid conflict if at all possible. But if not even remotely possible, I would hope that I could end things quickly and with minimal suffering. I also hope that I never have to make that choice.

» Edited on: 2013-05-30 18:07:18

I'll edit this when I get home as at work right now but the following is what I put on my Good Reads account after I read the book. --- I had heard of this book before but never picked it up till our Gaiscioch Book Club had it as their first book to read for this month. The book stunned me. I really enjoyed it even though some parts I was worried on yet the way it was all tied up in the end: The book ended memorable in that last quarter of the book. To look back on the aspects of the book before it, made me thankful for where the journey would go to to tell its story. Even if I don't read any of the other Enderverse novels, I am very happy with knowing I read this one at the very least. This story will forever be one I will remember. --- Alright, home now. I agree with what Marrra said about the morality that there should have been some follow up to a non-violent option but I assume that the first book was very linear in believing there was no other option. Other than that, I did enjoy how the training panned out (and looking forward to the Battle School in the movie!) and how everything after that was real without him knowing. I did really enjoy the training with Mazer, believing that he was going against him rather than infact the Buggers. The other side of the coin with Peter/Valentine I enjoyed, especially seeing Peter mature more out of being violent and more towards the political side of the spectrum. At first I was worried for Valentine pairing up with him but on the character development level of it: It was a good mixing to see the conversations they'd have. For awhile there in the book I had to remind myself how old the characters were and it really was engrossing seeing them grow into the roles they would play in the novel even at the age they were at. It definitely emphasised (with Peter/Valentine) how someone of that age could have really phenomenal ideas yet if someone saw how old you were, even if the ideas were great, they would turn one down due to the age of the speaker. Looking forward to whatever we read next. Marrra and I thought that it would be good to perhaps have all the Club members put their vote in and then do a poll on them, removing one each time it is used.

» Edited on: 2013-05-31 04:52:42

I want to speak (quickly) on the subject of "what would you do to win a war". Would you be willing to use an atomic bomb on an enemy? My wife (Tenebrae) got me hooked on a podcaster named Dan Carlin, and his series called Hardcore History. In particular, one of his shows "Show 42 - Logical Insanity" is about this very subject. Men have fought on land and sea for thousands of years, and the "acceptable rules of combat" had long been established. The changes in technology (primarily the aircraft) over the first 50 years of the 1900s were so swift, that the "rules/ethics of war" couldn't keep up. Targetting systems weren't that good, but weapons continued to get more powerful. Killing of civilians became acceptable because they were "near military targets". Today, no sane nation would ever use nukes on another nation, because the destruction is so indiscriminate (and has all those nasty side effects). However its fascinating to see the logical progression of decisions that resulted in the US dropping the two bombs on Japan. Ender's world also went through a series of huge changes in a short time. First (of course) getting stomped by the buggers. But then the development of faster than light travel, the ansible, better weapons, and eventually the Little Doctor - a weapon so horrific that no sane person would knowingly use it. I know its not a clean comparison to using an atomic bomb, but the similarities are fascinating. Here is a link to Dan Carlin's website - and his current podcasts are all free downloads: http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php?page=hharchive I would also recommend his 5 part series "the Wrath of the Khans" and his 6 part series "Death Throes of the Republic" if you enjoy "Logical Insanity".

I noticed a question that was asked and not answered. Matik asked "...if you would accept your fate knowing that you caused it?", referring to accepting your fate if you knowingly were the aggressor forcing your enemy into a corner, making the need for them to annihilate you. I have a hard time picturing this. It is very difficult to put on those shoes and role play it. I think my reaction would be that of begging for forgiveness and mercy. The Buggers should have begged for mercy in the end, opening any and every line of communication to the humans. They did not, they were defiant to the end. It was like they wanted death and punishment. Strange to put myself in that role. Very difficult exercise. Interesting question. edit...As I look back on this comment I realize I am not taking into consideration of Orsons interpretation that the Buggers did do everything they could to communicate. I just disagree that they couldn't do it because they developed so differently than us. They did make a monument to Ender...but that's weak considering. So its my own opinion that Intelligent beings capable of faster than light travel would figure out how to communicate with us, especially considering they did with Ender. Anyways, I thought I would clarify.

» Edited on: 2013-06-04 08:18:34