# Why Orson Scott Card sucks



## kerpoe (Feb 17, 2005)

I'm going to piss alot of people off, and frankly I don't care

Let's take all the story's written by Eggar Rice Burroughs, George Orwell and Carl Simon and make one cliched series of pulp fiction crap. Ender's Game made me want to cry...because it was so horribly awful that I was worried that literature had died altoghether! The book itself copies the characters of Burrough's "Final Front" and changes their names. Also, I'm sure Card's plotline was used in at least 4 of the Star Trek episodes, and Battlestar gallactica as well. There's nothing original about his books and there is certainly nothing spectacular about them either. 

AMEN


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Feb 17, 2005)

LMAO






that's all i have to say on that. i think i picked that book up once and tried to read the first page.


----------



## kerpoe (Feb 18, 2005)

haha


----------



## The Holy Moly (Feb 23, 2005)

Don't forget to mention that everything has already been done...so in essence nothing is original.  

So everything must suck for you.


----------



## demonic_harmonic (Feb 24, 2005)

if you know kerpoe well enough, you know (s)he is hard to please.


in fact, i don't think i know any books you like.


----------



## Londongrey (Feb 25, 2005)

The Holy Moly said:
			
		

> Don't forget to mention that everything has already been done...so in essence nothing is original.
> 
> So everything must suck for you.




There is a difference between unoriginal and cliche.  There is still a lot of original writing going on that is being published.  But just like music you have to hunt a little through the chaffe.


----------



## Ajax (Feb 25, 2005)

I am so pissed off!
I love Card's work.
I am so upset!

But not really.


Hey man, everyone's entitled to their opinion. I've always been quite inspired by Card's writing, although I certainly haven't read all of it, or even the most well known pieces.

But if you don't like it, there's nothing wrong with saying so. There are quite a few books I've picked up when browsing and decided I didn't like them. I don't remember the names of all the authors though. If I can't skim the first chapter and catch an interest, I put it down and move on. Life's too short, and I don't have time to read them all.


----------



## The Holy Moly (Feb 25, 2005)

The forum topic is recommended reading.

Saying that something sucks because it lacks originality is unoriginal.

I find Orson Card’s books to be great because he explains why characters act how they do.  His characters don’t do something without a reason.  

Of all the books I’ve read I think that Card strikes closest to the truth of the human condition.

I haven’t read some of the other authors kerpoe mentioned but from the little I have read of George Orwell I don’t see how Card even compares.  They write about different topics.

kerpoe, I am curious to know what your interpretation of the plotline was in Ender’s Game.


----------



## max (Feb 27, 2005)

> Of all the books I’ve read I think that Card strikes closest to the truth of the human condition.



You're in trouble, then, fella.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Feb 27, 2005)

The Holy Moly said:
			
		

> The forum topic is recommended reading.
> 
> Saying that something sucks because it lacks originality is unoriginal.



*Cringe*

We've had these discussions before (check out the thread on Eragon in Books and Authors, we went to town).

But at the worst, what you're suggesting is that this should be moved to Books and Authors.

I've been here a while and I don't mind having these kinds of discussions. I will put in one bit of advice:

Make sure this remains about the books of Orson Scott Card, and try very hard to keep it professional. A whole thread disappeared once because that didn't happen.

*Cough* Terry Goodkind*cough*


----------



## Ilan Bouchard (Feb 27, 2005)

Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> *Cough* Terry Goodkind*cough*



Hm... do you need a glass of water?  I just recovered from a bought of flu myself, it's the winters, I tell ya'.


----------



## smog|curling (Feb 27, 2005)

Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> Make sure this remains about the books of Orson Scott Card, and try very hard to keep it professional.


That might be hard, though, when the title of the thread is so blunt in declaring that "Card sucks." It's been many years since I read something that he wrote, so I don't really have an opinion about his books either way, but I'm just saying that perhaps the thread's title should be changed.


----------



## Ham (Feb 28, 2005)

Talia_Brie said:
			
		

> Make sure this remains about the books of Orson Scott Card, and try very hard to keep it professional. A whole thread disappeared once because that didn't happen.
> 
> *Cough* Terry Goodkind*cough*



Incidentally, what I don't like about Goodkind is very much what I don't like about Card.  Goodkind has written thousands of fantasy pages as thinly veiled homage to Ayn Rand.  Card has written thousands of fantasy/SF pages as thinly veiled Mormom allegory/preaching.

To Card's credit, he's also written quite a bit where he _didn't_ preach or draw direct parallels to Mormonism.  And some of that writing is very well done.  But on the whole, he's just a little too religiously heavy-handed for me.  (At least, he was when I stopped reading his new stuff because of this, which is probably ten years ago now.  Though, since he's still receiving criticism for this with his new novels, I feel safe in avoiding his new works, too.)


----------



## Ilan Bouchard (Feb 28, 2005)

I don't think there's anything wrong with relating literature to religion.  If you don't like it, of course that's fine.  But if it's cleverly done, with unique comparisons and such, then I think it adds an element, especially for those who are able to catch each cross-over.  It adds a second depth to the story.


----------



## The Holy Moly (Mar 1, 2005)

max said:
			
		

> You're in trouble, then, fella.



Please clarify.




Talia, I think at worst I should have just kept my mouth shut as this thread it just to incite.


----------



## Talia_Brie (Mar 1, 2005)

The Holy Moly said:
			
		

> Talia, I think at worst I should have just kept my mouth shut as this thread it just to incite.



You're probably spot on there.


----------



## Tulkas (Mar 30, 2005)

"The secret to originality is hiding your sources” – Albert Einstein

Without trying to be Card's sterotypical supporter, Kerpoe, your argument is that of simply personal opinion and a limited field of reference.

Maybe what you and others do not realize is, as mentioned above, Card's popularity does not come from his striking story line, while decent, it comes from his complex ability to analyze the thought process and logical conclusiosn of his characters.  While in Enders Game, a slight twist at the end does through a bit of flare to the plot, it is in Enders Shadow as well as Enders Game, that we see Card develop his characters and their ingenious thoughts brilliantly...


----------



## Saponification (Mar 30, 2005)

Londongrey said:
			
		

> The Holy Moly said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cliches aren't nessecarily bad. Think Terry Pratchett - he uses a lot of fantasy cliches. It depends on how you handle them, I think. Pratchett is very open about what he does... he doesn't try and pass off all of his stuff as original, saying, "Hey, I invented this!"


----------



## swisstony (Mar 30, 2005)

tulkas, you're mistaken if you think you're counter is less limited a frame of reference.

His characterisation is fine, but it's hardly brilliant, I'd reserve praise like that for books like The Corrections.

Pratchett's take is entirely homage mingling in social commentary.  I think those aspects, that approach really are original.


----------



## Pendulum (Mar 30, 2005)

Ok, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. Everyone's entitled to their opinions so here is mine: personally, I enjoy Card's Ender series. I have not actually read the books stated in the first post, and I rarely watch Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica, so I'm not aware of any possible "plot stealing" that may be going on. I mainly enjoy his work because of the concepts it presents, which are, for lack of a better word, really cool. The reason I read is for enjoyment, if I don't like a book I won't read it. To me, this series is a decent read, even though he is not as great a writer as others mentioned in this thread. Just my opinion.


----------



## doctor (Oct 13, 2005)

Why does nobody ever mention 'Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus'? Does this book not exist?


----------



## Feed The Ravens (Nov 12, 2005)

You should be murdered with an axe, kerpoe. Your mother must be ashamed!


----------



## Hodge (Nov 12, 2005)

doctor said:
			
		

> Why does nobody ever mention 'Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus'? Does this book not exist?




I've mentioned it before. It's okay, but definitely not his best. It is sort of cool how there are no Mormons in it, though.


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Nov 12, 2005)

Never been a fan of Card's work. I liked the original story, "Ender's Game." Beyond that, I haven't found a lot to like in his novels. Again, that's my view . . . .


----------



## Wasson (Nov 30, 2005)

I recently read to origional Short Story "Enders Game" from like 1977.

I can't say that i was blown away by it.  To be totally honest the style of the writing fit the dispostic and cold nature of the story he was telling, but then again for being such a genious the character of "Ender" didn't seem all that smart.  I liked his attitude though, he was kind of a little bad ass.

The only thing that took me back with any real "take-back-ed-ness" was how when he destroyed the enemy planet with the sacrafice of his fleet..since the weapons they used apparently worked buy causing a "never ceasing fission reaction" that annhileated an entire planet in a matter of minutes....and i just can't buy that.


----------



## Hodge (Nov 30, 2005)

Why not? A decade or so ago a group of scientists fired up a brand spanking new particle accelerator and there were concerns that they might do something similar to what Dr. Device from _Ender's Game_ did to the Earth.


----------



## Wasson (Nov 30, 2005)

I wouldn't know...sorry if your assuming that i have read the book, but i though i made it clear that i have only read the Short Story, out of interist of reading the book. (concequently, do you think i should? I havn't quite decided...)

But witholding the scientific knowledge that i do, I really don't think such a thing would be possible. Basically the only thing that could destroy a planet "outright" would be something called a pequliar cosmic event called a "Gamma Ray Burst" and the energies involved in creating one are astronomical (quite literally), and thusly highly improbable you would need a massive amount of antimatter, and matter and then smash them together. Truly, the expolosion that insued would be like an act of god...

They have been observed from around the edges of how far we can see with current observational technology. From what i understand, if one was cosmicly "close", it would probably shread the atmosphere from the planet, immolate the crust, and then planetary destruction would happen from there on out. ...i guess... 

actually this gives me an idea...lol.  could help me finish an old project.


----------



## Hodge (Nov 30, 2005)

There's a type of matter called "strange" matter, which has the peculiar quality of turning the matter around it "strange" as well and then exploding.

A gammy ray burst is just that: a burst of gamma rays. They do not destroy a planet, although they would kill anything living on it that isn't heavily shielded.


----------



## Graff (Nov 30, 2005)

I just have to say, I think that Orson Scott Card is one of the best authors at developing characters I've EVER seen. I mean really good. I'm not a huge fan of science fiction, although I loved Ender's Game, but he is just a great writer period.

I don't think it's really the plot that makes a good book. It's the way it's written. It's the journey. It's the way it makes the reader feel when reading it.

As someone said before, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and that is mine


----------



## Wasson (Dec 1, 2005)

Hurm, i went and read a bit on it yeah a GRB located within our own galaxy would probably just kill all life on the planet, and they even theorize that the Ordovician mass extinction, 450 million years ago, was caused by a GRB.

I was thinking more along the lines of being caught directly in the stream, near the source...but really it'd be terribly diffrent than if our sun exploded and we got caught in a massive piece of dead star, so it doesn't matter.

I still don't think that even a very large space ship, even with some kind of totally bizzare, physics altering source of power and weaponry could destroy an entire planet.  I mean, when oppenhimer and his crew were making the first atomic bomb, they were all scaird that it might ignite the atmosphere and burn it off...guess not.


----------



## Soccah (Dec 1, 2005)

The Holy Moly said:
			
		

> Don't forget to mention that everything has already been done...so in essence nothing is original.
> 
> So everything must suck for you.



If you know something about literary theory, you might perscribe to Harold Bloom's (some say gloom) notion; originality and creativity has ceased to exist.  Everything has already been done, and done well.

The author is dead.  What we are left with, is a long unending stream (albeit a thinning one) of great literature.  The world might have changed, and we may have new things to describe, but human nature remains the same.  We have nothing worth writing about that hasn't already been expertly written upon.

He is actually pretty convincing, it's somewhat scary.  But, hey, don't let it get you down, don't write for an audience, write for yourself.


----------



## Chalks (Dec 24, 2005)

This thread caught my attention for two reasons.
1.  I like Card.  Alot.
2.  I love a good argument.  

Just to illustrate where I'm coming from when I talk about Card's work, let me tell you some things about myself.  My family hasn't owned a tv for as long as I can remember.  So, to amuse myself, I read books.  Lots, and lots of books.  After moving 3 times, I exhausted the sci-fi section of 3 different libraries, and I mean that literally.

Asimov, Clarke, Heinlien, Wells, Anderson, Bradbury, Hubbard, etc.

Out of all those authors and more, I think Orson Scott Card does one of the best jobs writing.  He develops characters extremely well, and has had a good storyline in all his books.  While I agree that sometimes he delves into mormon theology a tad more often than I would like (especially in Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead), he still writes well.  Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow remain in my top 5 favorites.


that said... Huzzah for science fiction!


----------



## stereomuse (Jan 7, 2006)

kerpoe said:
			
		

> Also, I'm sure Card's plotline was used in at least 4 of the Star Trek episodes, and Battlestar gallactica as well.



yeah, that makes sense. Given Battlestar galactica started in 2003 and ender's game was written in 1992. And don't even mention the 1978 version. That had no similarites what so ever to it. A fleet of nomadic ships traveling around looking for earth. the same as a kid going to school to learn how to be the leader of the military. ANd didnt somebody in this thread mention the original short story was written in 1977? 

Nice try though...


----------



## Hodge (Jan 7, 2006)

Er, what? _Ender's Game_ was written in 1985, my friend. And _Battlestar Galactica_ used to be an older series from the early 80's, I think.

But he's still wrong. _Ender's Game_ is a very enjoyable and original read. It's ranked as the number three best Hugo award winner of all time.


----------



## Anarkos (Jan 7, 2006)

Truth is not democratic.


----------



## Shade53 (Jan 8, 2006)

The original short story - Ender's Game was published in the August 1977 issue of Analog


~S


----------



## stereomuse (Jan 8, 2006)

Hodge said:
			
		

> Er, what? _Ender's Game_ was written in 1985, my friend. And _Battlestar Galactica_ used to be an older series from the early 80's, I think.
> 
> But he's still wrong. _Ender's Game_ is a very enjoyable and original read. It's ranked as the number three best Hugo award winner of all time.



it was in 1978, and i mentioned it. http://www.imdb.com/find?q=battlestar%20gallactica;s=all

oops sorry about the ender's game date.when i looked at amazon it said it was in 92.


----------

