Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

You are SO right about "The DaVinci Code".

I went and checked your rating to see if you were being sarcastic or not. I still don't know. =(

I guess I'll figure it out if you say the same thing about my unkind reviews of Ishmael and The Giver. Then again, you may not want to interpose yourself with that awful mess.

In any case, thanks for the comment. It's nice not to have to exist in a void of utter relativity.

I thoroughly enjoyed Ender's Game, and look forward to reading more of the series. The Giver I liked as a kid, but I don't see myself rereading it anytime soon. The DaVinci Code is an entirely different can of worms. While interesting and well-researched, I found it to be utterly predictable and rather poorly written (much like Rich Dad, Poor Dad, actually). I'm not surprised that it's so popular with the masses, considering the reading level of the majority of this country.

Actually, the research behind it was really quite terrible. Brown just took the most common vague conspiracy theories about Catholocism--the sort of things one learns their first year in the seminary--and combined them with forged documents placed illegally in the French National Library by a con man. All of his assertions about the Knights Templar are from this completely unsubstantiated document.

When I first read the book, I thought it was vaguely interesting until I got to end and realized there was no bibliography. No one spends a year researching a book and then hides their sources. It was at that moment that I knew that Brown was not only a poor writer, but a sensationalist and hack, as well.

Very interesting. I never pay much attention to bibliographies, so I completely missed the lack.

hahaha! AMEN brother. I might have to adopt you and drag you to Easter dinner. Imagine the conversations... Old gramps might crack a smile for once.

(and can I borrow your shirt?)

Certainly, militarism and the brotherhood of arms is often idealized and romanticized, from Gilgamesh and Enkidu to Achilles and Patroclus to Henry V, as you mentioned. People do bond under stress, developing a reliance and necessary trust upon those around them, and getting rid of anyone who doesn't assimilate.

This bond can be strengthened even more when the mind and spirit of the soldiers is broken down, forcing them to work together just to get through the day. There is a reason the US military employs more psychologists than any other institution in the world: breaking down men and making them reliable and responsive to orders is a difficult task.

Historically, it was somewhat easier, since the men who formed the armies knew each other since childhood, meaning trust could be built between them over time. However, the romance of these fighting men relying one on the other has always been dependent on non-warriors.

The Spartans of 'Gates of Fire' were supported by their slave class and warrior kings like Richard the Lionheart and Henry V bled their countries dry to support the foreign wars that kept them away from their kingdoms for years at a time.

This military bond between soldiers is often a curious one, as it is not judgmental or based upon the character or personality of the other man. Even if you don't like a guy, you learn to deal with him. You still have to trust each other: even if you don't know his deepest thoughts, you have to be able to predict him.

Since this bond is not one of character, it's nature can change depending on the men involved. Sometimes one man supports another while he fights a hostile foe, and sometimes he supports his compatriot while they kill innocents and torch a village.

The military is a social tool, and may serve many ends. It is neither good nor bad, in and of itself, but is capable of producing some of the most admirable and some of the most despicable acts of man. Often one after the other.

When Shakespeare wrote Henry V, he was not just presenting a national epic of the romance of war, though if you concentrate on the glorious speeches, it might seem that way. Of course, the whole world seems different to the man who only looks at the glorious speeches.

Shakespeare's play shows both sides, the glory and the pillage, the upper class officers and their honor and the lower class soldiers and their savagery. In America we still draw our infantries from poverty and our officers from the elite.

This is not to say the upper class is morally superior to the lower, but rather that they can more easily afford to be honorable in a world that doesn't often reward it.

Heinlein was a military man, and Starship Troopers gives us the fruits of his experience. Like many of his books, he writes long diatribes about his philosophies. A man can be effectively right and still be talking out of his ass. If his protagonist suddenly launched into an angry rant about the proper way to plane a drawer, the soapbox might be easier to see.

One of the most difficult things in reading is seeing when an author is on his high horse even when he agrees with us. Seeing past the author's point of view is easy, it's seeing past ourselves that often eludes us.

There is a reason that Starship Troopers is the only sci fi book on the West Point reading list: it accords with military philosophies and it does so bombastically. It is as strong an argument for the military way of life as Stranger in a Strange Land is for Unitarian hippy love-ins.

Card doesn't start his rants until the second Ender book, which leaves Ender's Game mostly a fun adventure. However, some have pointed out that Ender's propensity to resolve all things by violence is condoned by the author, which is curious.

Usually, an exceptionally smart child (or leader) uses more subtle means and only resorts to violence when it is the most effective option. Resorting to violence too often lessens its effect and invites resentment.

On the playground and the battlefield, violence is often seen as its own justification, and that's been enough for colonialists, nationalists, and Action Movie plots. But violence can't be a solution, because it doesn't end: there are always others to take it up when the old guard dies.

Violence is a process, a tug of war through generations. The kid who was picked on in the yard grows up to pick on others. When a war ends and leaves some nation's economy and infrastructure devastated, that nation starts a new war to recoup their losses.

It's always curious when war is romanticized, because war doesn't really need it. War is waged to restructure wealth, land, and social orders. Men will serve and some will die and each will get his pittance and his stories and Agamemnon will get the lion's share.

It's structured like a corporation, except that the military has a special social dispensation to deal death to achieve its business. This means the stresses are higher and the employees take their jobs more seriously.

I don't say this to belittle combat, but rather to state that the romantic ideal of it is a bit silly. We don't war to kill evil men, we war to safeguard our habitual way of life, even at the expense of others. If we live for oil, we war for it, if we live for money, we war for that. So it has always been.

Why romanticize it? To feel better about it? To feel righteous? Surely, it makes it easier to do, but that doesn't make it honest. It's easier to kill a faceless man you believe to be evil, but there are no such men, or at least very few. On the other side of your barrel is usually some other poor, dumb bastard about to die for his country.

With death so close, tales of honor, bravery, and nobility seem more remarkable. They are circulated as the heart of the warrior, but honor, bravery, and nobility are not traits all warriors have, nor traits common men lack.

Anyone who romanticizes military life for such ideals is ignoring the fact that any man, at any time can give his life in service of the betterment of the world, can show his honor, his bravery, and his nobility and need never lift a gun. There are enough struggles in this world that we should never fear of an opportunity to show our character.

Yeah, Ender's Game is a fun book. I also didn't have much luck with Card's later stuff--too preachy.

The Anita Blake series is in my to-read pile. I've heard good things; hopefully they won't disappoint.

If you've already written some reviews at other sites, you could always copy/paste them to this one. I don't think anyone would begrudge you.

Thanks for the comment. Ta.

Well, maybe he thought it would make the book scarier if he put in things he was scared of, or maybe this is another case of a .

Quite a shame if the sequels are as opinionated as you say they are. I would like to give the second book a try, but I suffer from a condition where I must complete a story regardless of quality...

At least this book ends in a manner that one can just walk away from it satisfied...

Yeah, this one is definitely enjoyable. I, too, have had books that, for whatever reason, I felt I just had to finish, for the sake of completeness, even hough I really wasn't enjoying them--but sometimes I don't feel I can justify putting time and energy into something that is already disappointing me.

When I was having trouble getting into the second one, I asked around to a few people I knew, and according to them, it doesn't get better. Then again, I know some people who really enjoyed the entire series, but most of them liked the preachiness because they agreed with Card. I don't really like preachy authors, period--whether I agree or disagree with them, I don't think it makes for a very entertaining story.

Bravo!

Thanks Howard.

I couldn't get into the second one long enough to get to the ending, but thanks for your thoughts, Andrew.

I liked this book. I was actually pretty surprised I liked it as much as I did. I cared less for the Meanwhile-Valentine-and-the-brother-she-hates subplots. They didn't really contribute very much to the story, other than to give her a method of leveraging herself off of earth. I thought it was a profound statement on the human condition when faced with "wartime" morality.

And as to dumbing things down... Don't confuse the purpose or intent of great works of literature with that of bestsellers. Mindless, but entertaining escapism, versus an introspective, hard-won intellectual pursuit. NOT criticizing, just saying, don't be so upset that when people are posed with taking a mental vacation or delving into something conceptually rich that requires effort to read and understand, most people will take the vacation. Or at the very least, don't be surprised. :)

"Don't confuse the purpose or intent of great works of literature with that of bestsellers."

I think in both Ender's Game and The Giver, the authors are trying to engage the reader in philosophical arguments, and I would hardly call them 'fun adventures'. In addition, I compare Ender's Game to Starship Troopers, which are both popular genre works, not thoughtful pieces of great literature, though they both analyze something about the psychology of war.

I don't see a point here where I'm comparing a rip roarin' adventure story to a high-minded piece of prose mastery. Indeed, in my last paragraph, I'd suggest The Illuminatus! Trilogy is twenty times more silly and adventurous than Da Vinci Code.

I haven't read Starship Troopers, so maybe I was mis-reading what you were trying to convey.

What I was trying to say (which I don't believe I expressed very coherently) was that the translation of a philosophical point or an existential quandary is often spelled out directly in bestsellers. So instead of having to read into allegory or search for a meaning beyond the text, its all there in black and white. I'm not attempting to disagree with you.I found myself thinking of Ender's Game after I put it down. Compared to, lets say The Hunger Games where I do feel like, when the book was done, so was I. Does that make sense? That is a form of escapism - which I agree, should be reserved for adults while we continue to urge children down the complex path of creating the own internal narratives. While basically agreeing with you on nearly every point in your review, I just don't see the problem with adults reading something dumbed down or having a "monopoly" on that sort of spoon-fed philosophy people get from some books.

Sorry if this was a "Meh" response - I came to the conclusion halfway through that enjoying this book and discussing it with friends was enough for me, and after having someone tear me a new one for something I didn't say in another review, I don't have much left to offer. Some of that misguided vitriol you mentioned...

It's true that things are often spelled out in bestsellers, but I don't think this is what makes them fun or escapist. I think the enjoyment of a low-key book comes from interesting characters, quick plotting, and exciting incidents.

Whenever an author sits down and tries to explain their philosophy, that's not the sign of good writing or exciting writing. I agree that a lot of bestsellers do this, but I think that's because a lot of bestsellers aren't very well written.

There are certainly some fun books that you can put down when you're done and not really think much more about them, but I don't think there's any need for long explanations in books like that.

Thanks for the comments.

I grew up loving The Giver, and I'm pretty sure it didn't ruin my mind. If it wasn't simple to understand I would have gotten bored and not read it thanks to my lovely ability to be distracted easily.

This review cracked me up! I'm so sick of this "we can't make the children overwork their little minds!" attitude. At the moment, I teach college freshman English, and even there you will find this same protective attitude, one that I usually toss to the wind. I taught Frank Herbert's Dune last year, and many students complained about it being too hard; that only made me teach it again.

I actually enjoy your reviews, Keely. Keep 'em coming!

Keely my dear cousin...I love you! :-D

Hephaestus said: "If [The Giver] wasn't simple to understand I would have gotten bored and not read it . . ."

My problem with it isn't the simplicity, it's the fact that it doesn't actually present us with ideas, but takes them for granted, as I explain in more detail in my review.

Lara said: "I'm so sick of this "we can't make the children overwork their little minds!" attitude."

Yeah, I know that unskilled teachers are only able to teach simple concepts, but a good teacher can teach any idea, if they have a good grasp of it. I saw a woman teach binary to fourth graders in five minutes, because she knew how to explain it.

Ariana said: "Keely my dear cousin...I love you! :-D"

Haha, very nice of you, thanks.

Thank you!!!!!! That is all.

Heh, glad you liked it.

This review was hilarious. Satirical, sarcastic, witty and just plain awesome! I loved the part "because children are just stupid versions of people." It successfully refutes and contradicts every lame argument people use to defend the typical dumbed-down aspect of children's literature in just half a sentence. Brilliantly put.

I have to say, I too am quite tired of that kind of attitude, to think that the more stupid literature is, the better it is for kids, which is a common argument to defend badly written books like Twilight and Eragon. It is always better to provoke thought from a child than to prevent it.

Glad to hear we're on the same page, glad you enjoyed the review.

Keely, reading your review just made my day. It was very well laid out and I think you deserve extra brownie points for the excellent vocabulary you used.

You seem to have a lot of pent up anger about books and the internet, which makes this site probably a boiling pot of stress for you.

Bukkrogers said: "You seem to have a lot of pent up anger about books and the internet, which makes this site probably a boiling pot of stress for you."

Actually, I find it rather amusing a lot of the time--hence the poodle thing, I figured that would tip people off to the fact that I tend to take the whole thing pretty lightly. I mean, most of the negative comments I get are so inexpert and hypocritical that it's hard not to laugh at them--and I certainly can't imagine getting very worked up about them--one might as well get angry at a toddler for spilling their juice.

Keely, you are an intellectual force to be reckoned with. I admire your depth.

Corey wrote: "Keely, you are an intellectual force to be reckoned with. I admire your depth."

I totally agree.

It's very humbling to hear someone express that--I just hope I can be a force for good. Thank you both for the kind words.

In Spanish there is a saying "Es Diferente Criticar a ser Criticón" I can't find a proper translation so I'll just say that there is a difference between giving a critique and just raging about something. I have no doubt you have interesting insights about the book (and the other books you mention in your rant) but all I get from reading your review is that you hate books that you consider to be "Dumbed Down"

Huh, it's odd you got that from the review, since I explicitly say that Ender's Game is a fairly effective simplification of another book, so clearly if I enjoyed this one, I can't hate all such books.

I have read both Ender's Game and Starship Troopers and while the former takes place from a child's perspective, I would definitely classify it as an adult book that children would also enjoy. I also wouldn't call it a simplified version and/or rewrite of Starship Troopers. If anything, the latter is much more about the military complex etc. while the former struck me as being about how to be(come) a human being - developing morality, learning to accept people as flawed-but-trying, etc. I'm not sure it was you who was saying that it was a simplified version, but you were at least referring to such a comparison. Keep in mind that I haven't read either of these books in at least a year, more like 5 in ST's case, so I could be wrong, but those are my general impressions. (I own the next books in the Ender's Game series but haven't started them yet.)

It's true, there is other stuff going on in Ender's Game--namely the fact that it's a 'bildungsroman' or a book that tells the story of a child coming to age. However, I would say that, in general, military training tends to treat soldiers like children: it takes responsibility away from them, it attempts to teach them 'how to be adults', it tries to give them a sense of discipline, and all that, so I see it as a similar 'growing up' process for a character to go through.

I tried reading the next book in the Ender series, but it got too preachy and slow-going for me, so I moved on to other things.

AT first I was going to take your opinion about this book seriously and actually believe that you believed this, but then I noticed that you didn't bother to finish the series apparently it is too "preachy". then I noticed you made a comment about kids saving the word by making angry comments on the Internet.... wtf. YOU ARE WRONG. and I'm going to tell you that the "preachy" part of CArd's books are the best part

Hmm, why am I not surprised that someone who enjoys typing 'you are wrong' in all caps on the internet thinks that the preachiness is the best part?

And to think: you were even going to believe my belief. Does that mean you now disbelieve my belief? What if I chose to disbelieve your disbelief?

okay I understand what you mean about typing the all caps thing but I have no idea what you mean about beliefs or disbeliefs I know what I said but I don't understand what you said

maybe you didn't understand what I meant about I believed you believe this. I was saying that I don't take you opinion seriously because you didn't read the sequels because they were, "preachy" and yes they were a bit but they have provided me a great insight on life and that's why I don't take your opinion seriously

The first book had an interesting, fast-paced story. The second book did not. Card's work did not provide me with any great insights on life. What he said was similar to other ideas I've studied in philosophy, but not written very well, and not very well thought-out. That is why I didn't continue on in the series.

Perhaps the fact that these ideas impressed you indicates that I should not bother to take your opinion of the books seriously. Then again, there's more to discussion than finding convenient reasons to disregard other people.

oh my goodness I didn't realize im talking to Locke, im sorry im sure you know everything and cant take someone else's opinion on a subject, his thoughts about philosophy interested me doesn't mean that I didn't know anything before him, im not going to become a philosophy major I just like any other mans opinion every now and then I input my opinion about there opinion

also I had another realization about your review, about this being dumbed down. sometimes the best teachers present the material in a very simple manner.

"im sorry im sure you know everything and cant take someone else's opinion on a subject"

Yeah, I don't think I'm the one who is having a problem accepting someone else's opinion, since you're the one wandering around declaring other people's opinions wrong and then accusing them of not actually holding that opinion, at all.

I respect people's opinions when they can back up what they say. I do not have respect for people who wander the internet declaring others wrong whenever they feel threatened.

You said you don't take my opinion seriously because I didn't find the series good enough to keep reading. I countered that I can hardly take your opinion seriously, since you chose to keep reading books that I think are pretty sucky. It's a two way street.

You can't blithely say my opinion doesn't count, and then when I counter that yours doesn't either, accuse me of 'not being able to take someone's opinion'. Don't forget who started the opinion-denying in the first place.

"sometimes the best teachers present the material in a very simple manner"

Certainly true, and I respect a writer who is able to present ideas in a precise, accurate way. What I do not respect is long-winded preaching in the middle of what is supposed to be a story. When I say Card's work is simple, I don't mean stripped-down and effective, I mean simplistic, biased, and incomplete. After all, when I say he's preachy and long-winded, I could hardly mean that he's precise and accurate.

First I want to thank you for you have challenged me and I almost consider you a friend now even though we have never met but you seem like a cool guy. next I want to apologize because my comments were a bit hostile such as, "YOU ARE WRONG" that was a heat of the moment comment. and I will try to back up my thoughts about the preachy parts being the best parts

first part I liked was at the end of speaker for the dead when the two races sat down and wrote a treaty so that both cultures could flourish together, this has helped me realize that knowledge is one of the most important things one can have.

second in speaker for the dead was that i admired that there was a job that some one was to speak a persons death to find the absolute truth, which often healed many wounds. this help me also to realize that truth is one of the most important things to give and to receive

third was i admired that in xenocide that some one died for their faith (a missionary) i know it isn't original but i liked it purely because someone felt that strongly about their faith. also another person died for there belief which was also very strong because the person did it to help the entire world.

fourth i loved the discussion about how possibly we are no better than computer programs because of genetic code, i found it to be an interesting thought but i dismissed it as false because that scientist have discovered our code changes fifty percent over the course of our life.

fifth and lastly in xenocide i found it interesting that a genius who worked on a problem found the solution when a mere peasant girl who didn't even yet have a basic education suggested an idea. this helped me grow my thoughts bout accepting everyones opinion which im such an idiot because, not to be idolizing or anything, i did the same thing as the genius and dismissed your opinion and told you that you were wrong but then came up with the answer, which was to back up my opinion and give examples.

and for a closing statement i want to thank you because you have helped me develop my own philosophies even further by making me think about them and write them down to you, hopefully we could become friends and give each other book suggestion, i feel like the books you would suggest would be better than my friends books or my brother's since you actually seem to cre about ideas and philosophy as much as i do when it come to displaying them in a book.

THANK YOU

Evan said: "I almost consider you a friend now even though we have never met but you seem like a cool guy. next I want to apologize because my comments were a bit hostile . . . i did the same thing as the genius and dismissed your opinion and told you that you were wrong"

Well, I'm certainly glad we were able to come to some sort of understanding, and thank you for letting me know specifically what you liked about the later books. I'm not saying those aren't interesting ideas to explore--they are--my problem with the later books was how Card chose to write about those ideas.

I think that the best way to put your own philosophies and ideas into a book is to create characters and scenes that will allow those ideas to come to the reader's attention naturally. So, if an author wants to explore the idea of racism, for example, then he should create scenes that bring up different ideas related to racism, and show the audience how this idea plays out, in the real world.

What I felt Card did was just have the characters sit and think about things, and then tell us what they were thinking, which meant that instead of a story about ideas, the story was interrupted by a lot of lengthy discussions about the ideas. To me, that's like exploring racism by having the main character sit in his bedroom and just think to himself how racism is bad.

One of the standard rules of fiction writing is 'show, don't tell'. Don't tell us that a character is brave, show him being brave. Don't tell us that racism is harmful, show us examples of the harm it causes. Don't tell us your philosophy on life, show us how that philosophy works.

So, in Ender's Game, we don't have to be told how difficult the training is, or how dehumanizing a soldier's life can be--because we see it happening. We don't need long paragraphs of the characters thinking about it, because it's clear from their actions what they are thinking.

So when I opened up the next book, and found it was just the character sitting and thinking to himself for what amounted to an essay on philosophy, I didn't like that. If someone wants to write an essay on philosophy, that's great--but filling a novel with essays disguised as character thoughts is not a very effective way to tell a story.

So, that's what I mean by 'preachy'--that instead of showing us how people work through their interactions with the world, Card just sat down and told us about his ideas. Anyways, thanks for the comments.

Wait, is this even a review? Hahaha.

The eternal question.

Ha ha, what a diatribe.... Love people talking about talking about books er kids education and books, a book.... I'm reading this book Enders game that is, for the first time, I teach a lot of 6 year olds and the dumber something is in a book the quicker they become bored, kids naturally have 3 and even 4 dimensional thinking and heav no problem with talking rabbits, falling down a hole to the other snide of the world, time shifting or the the existence of a multiverse

Yeah, it's pretty impressive what kids are capable of understanding, if we give them the opportunity to learn.

It's kind of sad how only a kid would be unsuspecting enough to kill off an entire species, and think it was a simulation because the adults said it was.