Speaker for the Dead
Mar. 16th, 2006 03:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI can't remember the last time I cried. But I *nearly* did again last night, just reading Speaker for the Dead.
For the record, Ender's Game is a complete classic, and if you've not heard of it, you have to read it. It's not like Cryptonomicon which was just my opinion, everyone says so. I think.
Speaker for the Dead is also very good in my opinion, but rather different, and generally regarded as less good. Certainly as I read it again, I sense a confusion of ideas over the plot. Something I understand more and more as I write, and want to fit my original ideas in, even thought the *reasons* for them have been modified out of existence.
But indeed, I also want to think about how different evolutions might give sapients with different feelings for what's right.
* If froglike you have hundreds of children, only a few of which grow to maturity, you'll likely extend very little if any consideration to them. It might be like pets: you love some, you care for many, but you get on with your life when one dies.
I have seen this a few times, in The Algebraist, and a Peter F. Hamilton. And sometimes even in reverse in a way, where we transcend, and then stop worrying about individual humans. It would be a reasonable way for God to think of us, too, for that matter, though not pleasent for us to think of that! But none that ring exceptionally true to me.
* Lack of friendship between beings. If we evolved from solitary carnivores, we might easily work together when necessary, but never really feeled obliged to help anyone. Or from bees, we might love our mother and her fertile daughters, but not care almost nothing for ourselves or our other siblings.
I've often seen emotionless portrayed, but it's generally mocked or overcome by a sufficiently persuasive human.
* Sex might not be a drive. Or we might find entirely different things erotic.
* Or take the frog example to an extreme, we might ascribe more importance to our eggs than each other, and by extension have affection for round inanimate objects the way we actually do for pets.
For the record, Ender's Game is a complete classic, and if you've not heard of it, you have to read it. It's not like Cryptonomicon which was just my opinion, everyone says so. I think.
Speaker for the Dead is also very good in my opinion, but rather different, and generally regarded as less good. Certainly as I read it again, I sense a confusion of ideas over the plot. Something I understand more and more as I write, and want to fit my original ideas in, even thought the *reasons* for them have been modified out of existence.
But indeed, I also want to think about how different evolutions might give sapients with different feelings for what's right.
* If froglike you have hundreds of children, only a few of which grow to maturity, you'll likely extend very little if any consideration to them. It might be like pets: you love some, you care for many, but you get on with your life when one dies.
I have seen this a few times, in The Algebraist, and a Peter F. Hamilton. And sometimes even in reverse in a way, where we transcend, and then stop worrying about individual humans. It would be a reasonable way for God to think of us, too, for that matter, though not pleasent for us to think of that! But none that ring exceptionally true to me.
* Lack of friendship between beings. If we evolved from solitary carnivores, we might easily work together when necessary, but never really feeled obliged to help anyone. Or from bees, we might love our mother and her fertile daughters, but not care almost nothing for ourselves or our other siblings.
I've often seen emotionless portrayed, but it's generally mocked or overcome by a sufficiently persuasive human.
* Sex might not be a drive. Or we might find entirely different things erotic.
* Or take the frog example to an extreme, we might ascribe more importance to our eggs than each other, and by extension have affection for round inanimate objects the way we actually do for pets.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-16 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-17 02:15 pm (UTC)* At 6, Ender is chosen to join the Battle School, training children from a very young age to become officers in the Internation Fleet, set to repel the third invasion of insectoid 'Buggers'.
* He is the best hope for an overall commander, and trained intensively for years to try to mold him into this.
* Most of the book is about being Ender, his interaction with the other children. If you remember at all, especially if you've forgotten a lot, about your childhood, especially if you were somewhat brilliant and lonely, you'll be amazed.
* It's easy to read. No-one comes back saying "Um, I'm sure it's great, but I couldn't get into it." It isn't a children's book that can be read by adults, more the reverse.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-17 02:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-17 02:44 pm (UTC)Was there any reason you thought it might not be, or were you just checking?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-21 11:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 01:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-23 01:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-16 06:39 pm (UTC)I like Ender's Game, although it is the only Orson Scott Card I have ever read, apart from some of his views on homosexuality. Creating the Innocent Killer is an excellent essay about the morality of Ender's Game.
some of his views on homosexuality
Date: 2006-03-17 02:07 pm (UTC)