Ender's Game
I reread Orson Scott Card's classic s.f. novel this week, in part because my wife's book club read it and there it was in front of me. And it struck me that it raises some interesting questions that connect to what we're talking about.
Much of what matters in the lives of all three of the Wiggins geniuses is virtual. Locke and Demosthenes are the personae Ender's brother and sister use on the nets. But they aren't just names, right? At some point, Valentine remarks that she's written and thought as Demosthenes for so long that she sometimes thinks she is him. What do we make of our question of what's real and what's not when it comes to people and whatever virtual existence they might have? You World of Warcraft folks weigh in on this.
Second, much of what Ender is doing is playing the desktop game (the one with the Giant in it) and then playing the wargames at Battle School. These games are part of an elaborate artificial environment in which the military establishment shapes and trains their candidates. Of course, this all culminates in the grand deception: Ender thinks he's playing a game against Mazer Rackham when he's really fighint the buggers. But even before that lots of deception and manipulation are going on, as evidenced by the italicized conversations that begin most chapters.
Anyway, I should stop writing. What do you think about any of this? Or are there other things to say about Ender's Game? And if you haven't read it, it's a must.
I reread Orson Scott Card's classic s.f. novel this week, in part because my wife's book club read it and there it was in front of me. And it struck me that it raises some interesting questions that connect to what we're talking about.
Much of what matters in the lives of all three of the Wiggins geniuses is virtual. Locke and Demosthenes are the personae Ender's brother and sister use on the nets. But they aren't just names, right? At some point, Valentine remarks that she's written and thought as Demosthenes for so long that she sometimes thinks she is him. What do we make of our question of what's real and what's not when it comes to people and whatever virtual existence they might have? You World of Warcraft folks weigh in on this.
Second, much of what Ender is doing is playing the desktop game (the one with the Giant in it) and then playing the wargames at Battle School. These games are part of an elaborate artificial environment in which the military establishment shapes and trains their candidates. Of course, this all culminates in the grand deception: Ender thinks he's playing a game against Mazer Rackham when he's really fighint the buggers. But even before that lots of deception and manipulation are going on, as evidenced by the italicized conversations that begin most chapters.
Anyway, I should stop writing. What do you think about any of this? Or are there other things to say about Ender's Game? And if you haven't read it, it's a must.
posted by randy jensen at 2:10 PM
4 Comments:
There are those who have a problem with the character of Ender; or at least Card's portrayal of the character. The complaint is that Card sets Ender up as a blameless killer. John Kessel published in the spring 2004 issue of Foundation - The International Review of Science Fiction an article titled "Creating the Innocent Killer," which is a critical deconstruction of the moral worldview Card propounds through Ender. He describes there how Card and his characters manipulate the reader's point of view throughout the book so that Ender can commit murder several times and, ultimately, genocide of a species (albeit unknowingly), while retaining our sympathy and remaining innocent. He takes issue with Card's supposed assertion that the morality of an act is based solely on the intentions of the person acting.
Not sure if it is more of a question for an ethics class but I figured it goes along with the idea of reality, if Ender didn't know he was committing genocide can he be held responsible? What about his murder of Bonzo? He meant to make it so he could never fight back and ended up killing him, is he responsible? If so, why do most reader's still love the Ender character?
The short story "Ender's Game," on which the novel is based, can be found at the following address: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/stories/enders-game.shtml
Hi, a friend of mine in this class recommended me to this blog as I have always been interested in philosophy.
Another good example of this situation which you are talking about can be represented in the world of Facebook. Facebook allows someone to create an image of themselves which others see, regardless of its truth or validity.
The same is true in Ender's game- Valentine and Andrew create personas of themselves which are in a way the same type of thing as you, "randy jensen," on here. I do not know you as anyone other than your chosen name on here, and you do not know me as any other person. Likewise, the people of the Ender's Game universe did not know until the very end who Demosthenes and Locke were, and only had the actual things which "they" posted to go by.
Computer identities are essentially masks. They allow someone to create an image of themself, craft it to their liking, and then present that image as themselves. This presents a problem if the differences between the "online you" and the "real life you" are ignored. If both are the same, there is very little problem at all. However, if the online version of "me" is different than the real life version then it creates problems both with myself and with everyone who interacts with both personae. The act of distinguishing between the YOU which exists and the YOU which you yourself created via the internet lies at the root of this problem.
AIM is another great indication of this. People don't talk with each other literally; they talk through the computer to another person also talking through a computer. People never use phrases like "lol" outloud in their normal conversations, but in the different environment, in an AIM conversation, it is considered commonplace and in fact, using completely correct grammar and spelling might actually seem weird of all things! Whereas in a normal conversation, for someone to not speak in sentences and use terrible grammar would have a much different effect on the people in the conversation.
To answer your question, about what's real/not real, I think it comes down to the fact that the "real" creates the virtual reality world, so in effect it is part of the person who created it and in that manner, real.
John,
Welcome to the blog. We're glad to hear from you whether you're in the class or not. It's an interesting idea to think of someone's virtual presence as part of her real self. Some folks have developed a theory of "the extended mind" that might fit with that. See http://consc.net/papers/extended.html
And we've always been able to (forced to?) wear masks in society, right? But computer technology takes that to a whole new level and creates new problems.
Post a Comment
<< Home