Orson Scott Card: How 'Friend' Became a Verb(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Orson Scott Card: How 'Friend' Became a Verb
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703727804576017891806186856.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion
3 comments
It must suck to live in a world where the main-stream media is so wildly left-wing you can't stand to read it. Just how extremely right-leaning do you have to be to end up with that perspective?
His opinions on other subjects range from misguided to outright offensive.
Orson Scott Card has devolved into a frothing at the mouth lunatic in recent years. His opinions are borderline worthless. His more recent novels make Twilight look like fine literature.
His opinions on other subjects range from misguided to outright offensive.
Orson Scott Card has devolved into a frothing at the mouth lunatic in recent years. His opinions are borderline worthless. His more recent novels make Twilight look like fine literature.
Ah, it's so sad to me because I really enjoyed the Ender books. But this guy is so frustrating to listen to and some of the quotes I have heard from him are incredibly offensive. I don't know where someone who seemed so intelligent a few years ago now appears to be out of touch with reality.
Meta comment: +8? Who is upvoting this comment which is nothing but a stream of insults, and why?
You value this comment and want to see more of this kind of comment on HN?
You value this comment and want to see more of this kind of comment on HN?
I just upvoted this comment as well. So apparently Card can make idiotic comments about the media and the left which are stupid beyond belief but we cant. Im a fan of science fiction and card is on my list of books to read. I knew nothing of the person but after reading that article which was absolutely devoid of any substance and sounded like it was written by someone completely out of their mind id say i will be avoiding his books like the plague.
I would say avoid his books because hes a hack.
He gets away with it because 1) most sci-fi (especially in the past, it's actually made a lot of strides) is pretty bad in terms of writing....it's more about the strength of it's ideas and fantasy.
2) Ender's Game is "Twilight" for nerds. Ender (and to an extent, Val/Peter) is this empty vessel for Teens to pour themselves into. (come on..it starts with Ender bemoaning about how the big bad grownups are always lying to him)
I'd say read Ender's Game because it's an interesting enough book. You can safely skip just about everything else he's written though.
The only reason Ender's Game gets so much praise is because most people read it as a teenager and didn't notice how awful it is. It's basically porn for mal-adjusted nerds (it's the ultimate revenge fantasy) so a lot of it's young readers (hey, myself included) completely miss the high amount of WTF.
I mean come on, the book starts out with the premise that eugenics works. The twist at the end is predictable.
Theres a bunch of plot holes....and the characters are ridiculous. Ender is this absurd Jesus figure and everyone else in the book is a cardboard cutout that exists solely for the purpose of either getting knocked over or propped up by Ender.
The thing is Ender's Game does not provide any insight into children per se, it does provide a perfect example of how many teenagers like to view themselves though (misunderstood mesiah figures persecuted by a universally evil populace) hence it's popularity.
The whole Val/Peter thing is just embarrassing and sad...and you can imagine a lot of Card's young readers placing themselves in that role and imagining themselves as great orators who take over the world with their brilliant (though never really articulated ideas).
Only teenagers and someone like Card could be so naive/insane/ignorant of how politics work to find such an idea remotely plausible.
It has at it's heart the premise that everyone in politics is just dicking around doing nothing.... just waiting for someone who actually knows whats REALLY going on to shine the light on them...(despite my disdain of current politics, I have slightly more respect for both sides than that).
Understanding that and reading Card's blog you can see maybe his politics and writing aren't so divorced
The books only redeeming quality, like I said before, is the interesting ideas....
The battle school for example is interesting...the game is interesting (until Card ruins it...the game is actually a really good example of where, instead of making Ender brilliant he just made everyone around him really dumb.) The buggers etc are moderately interesting.
I've read a fair amount of his other work, and really he hasn't done much worth reading....stick with any of the thousands of SciFi authors who are much much better.
He gets away with it because 1) most sci-fi (especially in the past, it's actually made a lot of strides) is pretty bad in terms of writing....it's more about the strength of it's ideas and fantasy.
2) Ender's Game is "Twilight" for nerds. Ender (and to an extent, Val/Peter) is this empty vessel for Teens to pour themselves into. (come on..it starts with Ender bemoaning about how the big bad grownups are always lying to him)
I'd say read Ender's Game because it's an interesting enough book. You can safely skip just about everything else he's written though.
The only reason Ender's Game gets so much praise is because most people read it as a teenager and didn't notice how awful it is. It's basically porn for mal-adjusted nerds (it's the ultimate revenge fantasy) so a lot of it's young readers (hey, myself included) completely miss the high amount of WTF.
I mean come on, the book starts out with the premise that eugenics works. The twist at the end is predictable.
Theres a bunch of plot holes....and the characters are ridiculous. Ender is this absurd Jesus figure and everyone else in the book is a cardboard cutout that exists solely for the purpose of either getting knocked over or propped up by Ender.
The thing is Ender's Game does not provide any insight into children per se, it does provide a perfect example of how many teenagers like to view themselves though (misunderstood mesiah figures persecuted by a universally evil populace) hence it's popularity.
The whole Val/Peter thing is just embarrassing and sad...and you can imagine a lot of Card's young readers placing themselves in that role and imagining themselves as great orators who take over the world with their brilliant (though never really articulated ideas).
Only teenagers and someone like Card could be so naive/insane/ignorant of how politics work to find such an idea remotely plausible.
It has at it's heart the premise that everyone in politics is just dicking around doing nothing.... just waiting for someone who actually knows whats REALLY going on to shine the light on them...(despite my disdain of current politics, I have slightly more respect for both sides than that).
Understanding that and reading Card's blog you can see maybe his politics and writing aren't so divorced
The books only redeeming quality, like I said before, is the interesting ideas....
The battle school for example is interesting...the game is interesting (until Card ruins it...the game is actually a really good example of where, instead of making Ender brilliant he just made everyone around him really dumb.) The buggers etc are moderately interesting.
I've read a fair amount of his other work, and really he hasn't done much worth reading....stick with any of the thousands of SciFi authors who are much much better.
I just upvoted this comment as well. So apparently Card can make idiotic comments about the media and the left which are stupid beyond belief but we cant.
What do you mean "we can't"? You can say whatever you want here (subject to YCombinator's terms of services and any applicable laws), but the voting system is supposed to encourage "content that contributes to the site" to make the site higher quality and I don't think astrodust's comment "he's a frothing lunatic" is a high quality contribution, it's just an unsupported personal insult and I'm annoyed that it's being upvoted by agreement.
id say i will be avoiding his books like the plague.
Ender's Game makes number 1 in a top 100 SciFi books list ( http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_books... ), don't avoid it because you don't like the author personally, only avoid it if it looks like a rubbish book.
What do you mean "we can't"? You can say whatever you want here (subject to YCombinator's terms of services and any applicable laws), but the voting system is supposed to encourage "content that contributes to the site" to make the site higher quality and I don't think astrodust's comment "he's a frothing lunatic" is a high quality contribution, it's just an unsupported personal insult and I'm annoyed that it's being upvoted by agreement.
id say i will be avoiding his books like the plague.
Ender's Game makes number 1 in a top 100 SciFi books list ( http://home.austarnet.com.au/petersykes/topscifi/lists_books... ), don't avoid it because you don't like the author personally, only avoid it if it looks like a rubbish book.
Presumably, many other users have made the same observations (the neutral form of "insult") and believe them to be relevant.
For the record: I didn't upvote.
For the record: I didn't upvote.
The popularity of Fox News channel indicates that most people think that the mainstream media is too left-wing.
I'm not sure why this was down-voted. You may disagree with Fox News, but you can't deny that it is the most popular network. People aren't watching it because they disagree with it.
How about giving him a chance because he's Orson Scott Card?
Either way, he's done some of my favorite science fiction titles but I mostly have to pretend he doesn't exist in real life. His politics, with regard to social issues, are just vulgar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Politics
Either way, he's done some of my favorite science fiction titles but I mostly have to pretend he doesn't exist in real life. His politics, with regard to social issues, are just vulgar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Scott_Card#Politics
This bothered me, until I realized that I should be reading books by people with whom I disagree. The oddity of it is, one of the great things about his books is that they show perspectives much more alien than mere human political differences.
If you feel bad about supporting him financially, remember that he only gets about a dollar for each book you buy. If you borrow it from the library, your contribution is even smaller.
If you feel bad about supporting him financially, remember that he only gets about a dollar for each book you buy. If you borrow it from the library, your contribution is even smaller.
Why should you feel bad about supporting him because he has different political views?
I agree with this completely. If you enjoy his novels, then read them. No where does it say that you have to agree, or even read, his personal and political views (yes, I realize they seep into his novels, but this goes back to my "if you like the novels, read them" statement).
On the subject of his political views, I looked at the referenced Wikipedia site and don't see anything "vulgar" listed there. Perhaps I use a different definition of "vulgar" than others... [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgar]
On the subject of his political views, I looked at the referenced Wikipedia site and don't see anything "vulgar" listed there. Perhaps I use a different definition of "vulgar" than others... [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vulgar]
>And subversives can expose diplomatic secrets, critics can expose scientific hoaxes, and governments can track conspiracies
While part of me is still hoping he's talking about Snopes, I know this is a reference to the University of East Anglia emails, which were about as much a blow to climate science as the Arsenic bacteria were a boon to astrobiology. I may have to adopt your "pretend he doesn't exist in real life" approach.
While part of me is still hoping he's talking about Snopes, I know this is a reference to the University of East Anglia emails, which were about as much a blow to climate science as the Arsenic bacteria were a boon to astrobiology. I may have to adopt your "pretend he doesn't exist in real life" approach.
Since you brought it up, I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but he is a fan of Snopes.
I have the same problem. The author and real-life raving loon are two different people in my head. Ender's Game is still one of the best books I've read and I have to keep this separation to avoid going out and donating the books of his I own.
I refuse to read any of his new stuff, but that's probably 50% politics and 50% taste.
I refuse to read any of his new stuff, but that's probably 50% politics and 50% taste.
Oh, maybe you mean his extended fawning Hitler biography Ender's Game: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/22428/7034
That link gets stupider each time I have to read it, which humorously enough is each time Card's name gets mentioned in any topic, it's a new abstract Godwin's Law.
This is the first time I've seen that article. Can you explain more? Is there more surrounding this article?
Read the article linked in that link, even he comes straight out and says "This is in no way a Hitler biography." It's a bad sign when your linked citations contradict your point. The rest of it is an anecdotal and largely unrelated mess, you can scroll farther down for some of the responses to it.
I think OSC's political positions are nigh idiotic, and frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books. E.G. Homosexual characters in his books are not society destroying monsters. Yet even given that you're still overstepping sane literary analysis when you start the Hitler biography bullshit. Attack the man on his politics all you want, his positions are easy to verify and highly public, just leave the stupid smears to die.
I think OSC's political positions are nigh idiotic, and frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books. E.G. Homosexual characters in his books are not society destroying monsters. Yet even given that you're still overstepping sane literary analysis when you start the Hitler biography bullshit. Attack the man on his politics all you want, his positions are easy to verify and highly public, just leave the stupid smears to die.
"frankly confusing given the very reasonable positions he presents in some of his books"
Yes, that has always puzzled me - going from portraying gay characters as alright people suffering from straight society's marginalization to ranting about the Gay Agenda. I suspect it has something to do with a remark he made in the late 80s or early 90s about local church (CoLDS) officials encouraging him to spend more of his pro writing time on religious propaganda or other pro-church material. It was in a non-fiction piece or an afterword in a book of his, and I wish I could remember which one.
Yes, that has always puzzled me - going from portraying gay characters as alright people suffering from straight society's marginalization to ranting about the Gay Agenda. I suspect it has something to do with a remark he made in the late 80s or early 90s about local church (CoLDS) officials encouraging him to spend more of his pro writing time on religious propaganda or other pro-church material. It was in a non-fiction piece or an afterword in a book of his, and I wish I could remember which one.
Interesting. I didn't read any of the comments, I suppose that would have helped.
What I thought was more interesting than the Hitler comparisons were the allegations of ghostwriting. I thought THAT was the real point of the article, that it was clear he didn't even know what was in his books, and when presented with something he definitely wrote, it was incoherent and poorly written.
What I thought was more interesting than the Hitler comparisons were the allegations of ghostwriting. I thought THAT was the real point of the article, that it was clear he didn't even know what was in his books, and when presented with something he definitely wrote, it was incoherent and poorly written.
You'll be happy to know that his newest, _Pathfinder_, is essentially politics-free. Of course, it also covers ground he's trod multiple times before, but if you like that sort of thing, it's fine. :)
That link and everything associated with it is exactly why I don't give him a chance just because he's Orson Scott Card.
Next time the author should write an article about how "friend" became a verb.
"Friend" (the noun) has become "friend" (the verb). Hence, his usage is correct.
>"Friend" (the noun) has become "friend" (the verb). Hence, his usage is correct.
My comment was about the disparity between the title and the substance of the article, not about usage. Sorry for the confusion. But since you've got me typing again, one thing about the substance. Card is right to say historians have little to worry about, but the old hand-written letters, especially when written by the likes of Henry James, have always been more than grist for the historian's mill. They became in some cases a genuine art form. I think that is one of the things lost in the transition to electronic communication: a peculiar kind of intimate art form. Other art forms have risen to take their place: the art of the blog, the art of the 140-character witticism, but not, as far as I can tell, the art of the email--at least not if you discount the humorous trolls. It was surprising to me that Card, as a novelist, didn't address that.
My comment was about the disparity between the title and the substance of the article, not about usage. Sorry for the confusion. But since you've got me typing again, one thing about the substance. Card is right to say historians have little to worry about, but the old hand-written letters, especially when written by the likes of Henry James, have always been more than grist for the historian's mill. They became in some cases a genuine art form. I think that is one of the things lost in the transition to electronic communication: a peculiar kind of intimate art form. Other art forms have risen to take their place: the art of the blog, the art of the 140-character witticism, but not, as far as I can tell, the art of the email--at least not if you discount the humorous trolls. It was surprising to me that Card, as a novelist, didn't address that.
I don't think there's a single new thing in there for readers of this site, but perhaps this counts as bringing these insights to the masses? Orson Scott Card may not be a household word, but possibly these ideas haven't yet gotten much play in the WSJ?
Or perhaps I'm just trying too hard to be charitable.
Or perhaps I'm just trying too hard to be charitable.
I was willing to give him a chance since it's the WSJ, but he just had to throw something like that in there.