Ender's game is completly focused on the fact that ender is a child. That he is a brilliant mind, with a child's morals in a child's body.
Parson comes from a world with a mind possessing the exact opposite - the maturity of real life.
Ender is a genius with a child's understanding, thrust into an adult's world with adults pulling the strings.
Parson is a genius with a regular person's understanding of ethics and Morales, and thrust into a cartoon world of fantasy.
Stories are not parallel at all.
Even looking at the endgame, parson used a scorch and burn.
Ender just dropped a bomb of anhillation on his enemy.
Even their strategies are different. Ender is not the best strategist in Ender's game universe. Bean is. Ender is *almost* a good a military thinker as Bean, being able to come to the same conclusions much of the time. But Ender has to work for it, and to Bean he virtually breathes in strategy and blows out godly battle plans. Ender's true strength, that makes him greater than bean is his ability to connect with and fully utilize his commanders. He is capable of understanding the minds of others, and putting them in positions which pefectly suit them. If ender had failed and it had come down to bean leading, it would have been harder to win because it would be Ender's extremly good strategy excuted by perfect commanders vs Bean's nigh perfect strategy executed by good commanders. Ender was all about the human element, how to use extremly good people to maximum potency.
This is much clearer in Ender's shadow and seqaules.
Though when Bean puts the effort in- he's an exceptional commander of adults. Shadow of the Giant stressed that all the children were egotists- hungry for victory and command.
Ender was better able to manage the other children- but would he have done as well with real soldiers the way Bean did?
Sorry, most of my research comes in the form of textbooks for the various philosophy classes.
The biggest one people harp on is the fact that the parent's knew his true gender. Children pick up on a lot more then they are generally given credit for, in the way of body language and subverbal tells. It's very unlikely that the parents could have given no hint whatsoever as to the childs true Gender.
Then why'd they keep using Money after his work was known to be patently unreliable?
__________________
This statement lacks verisimilitude.
Now 33% more pretentious!
Spoiler
LOC 5 - Week 3:
DR/WS: 3/5
Mights: Power: 1, Presence: 2, Pot: 3, Sen: 2
AP: 8,
Domain AP: 2 Knowledge, 2 Magic
Artifacts: Rod of Knowledge - +1 Domain AP/week. Current charges: 2
Domains: Knowledge, Magic
Creations: Forests/Jungles, Great Apes, sentient Apes
You want me to take a stab in the dark at their motivations?
Money is in a position of Authority. Academic Authority is actually some of the most powerful, from a psychological point of view. Money tells them they are wrong, and they listen because to not would mean doubting the Academic Edifice which Money's Career and reputation are a part of.
If you need proof of the power of authority, go look at the Milgram Experiment. If people are willing to kill someone just because they are told to, they'll mess up their own sons life easy.
I'm familiar with the Milgram experiment, though I'm not certain the principles apply. The family could have very easily found a psych that encouraged Bruce's being Bruce.
__________________
This statement lacks verisimilitude.
Now 33% more pretentious!
Spoiler
LOC 5 - Week 3:
DR/WS: 3/5
Mights: Power: 1, Presence: 2, Pot: 3, Sen: 2
AP: 8,
Domain AP: 2 Knowledge, 2 Magic
Artifacts: Rod of Knowledge - +1 Domain AP/week. Current charges: 2
Domains: Knowledge, Magic
Creations: Forests/Jungles, Great Apes, sentient Apes
I'm more talking about the parent's. Money's position as a Psychological Professor, and holder of a degree placed him in a position of Authority. The Parent's in turn, were converted into his actors, and ignored their knowledge and observations, simply because Money told them to.
That's who I'm speaking of, as well. I'm fairly certain another Doctor of Psychology could have been found, with equivalent or superior credentials compared to Money's, that would have encouraged penile reconstruction.
On another note: I've just picked up "Ender in Exile" today. Almost finished. At the point where Ender's assistant, Abra,
Spoiler
discovers the remnants of the Formics' recreation of Giant's Cup scenario.
Honestly, the Alessandra storyline was a bit unnecessary. Interesting, but unnecessary.
What frustrates me is the lack of any closure regarding Bean's spawn on Ganges. Has Card written anything on that?
EDIT: *headdesk* Just finished. Ignore above paragraph.
__________________
This statement lacks verisimilitude.
Now 33% more pretentious!
Spoiler
LOC 5 - Week 3:
DR/WS: 3/5
Mights: Power: 1, Presence: 2, Pot: 3, Sen: 2
AP: 8,
Domain AP: 2 Knowledge, 2 Magic
Artifacts: Rod of Knowledge - +1 Domain AP/week. Current charges: 2
Domains: Knowledge, Magic
Creations: Forests/Jungles, Great Apes, sentient Apes
Last edited by YesImSardonic : 08-02-2009 at 03:05 PM.
Shadow of the Giant stressed that all the children were egotists-
was this conclusion reached by the studies of the same folks from the university of the obvious who determined Paris, France to be the snobbiest city in the world?
EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KBF
Remember: To be a Stu, it has to be written badly. If you have to really observe the character and study the varying aspects of his story for you to notice, it's probably not a Stu. There are a lot of would-be Stu's out there that would make some good media horrifying to read/watch, but are just written so you never notice. I'd like to give a few examples but, as you can understand, it's a very... Sensitive subject. Nobody can really agree who is a Stu and who isn't. Usually if these debates occur in a very mature way, it's not a real Stu.
this is incorrect. Dante is a Sue in the divine comedy, which is a brilliant...Epic? Story? Poem?...thing.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Herman
I just found a dead cat in my quern. I guess someone was trying to make cat bread.
Props go out to kwarkpudding for the awesome avatar!
The point I was trying to make, is that the fact Bean isn't especially good at commanding the other children, compared to Ender, doesn't mean Ender would be better at commanding ordinary troops than Bean, as well.
Ender's game is completly focused on the fact that ender is a child. That he is a brilliant mind, with a child's morals in a child's body.
Parson comes from a world with a mind possessing the exact opposite - the maturity of real life.
Ender is a genius with a child's understanding, thrust into an adult's world with adults pulling the strings.
Parson is a genius with a regular person's understanding of ethics and Morales, and thrust into a cartoon world of fantasy.
Mmm, that is a most interesting point of view.
Though one could argue that what this means is that both are thrust into a world which is not theirs and does not share their respective moralities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sikyon
Stories are not parallel at all.
Here, I disagree. Parallel does not mean identical, and I think enough similarities abound to warrant such a term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sikyon
Even looking at the endgame, parson used a scorch and burn.
Ender just dropped a bomb of anhillation on his enemy.
...the difference being?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sikyon
Even their strategies are different. Ender is not the best strategist in Ender's game universe. Bean is. Ender is *almost* a good a military thinker as Bean, being able to come to the same conclusions much of the time. But Ender has to work for it, and to Bean he virtually breathes in strategy and blows out godly battle plans. Ender's true strength, that makes him greater than bean is his ability to connect with and fully utilize his commanders. He is capable of understanding the minds of others, and putting them in positions which pefectly suit them. If ender had failed and it had come down to bean leading, it would have been harder to win because it would be Ender's extremly good strategy excuted by perfect commanders vs Bean's nigh perfect strategy executed by good commanders. Ender was all about the human element, how to use extremly good people to maximum potency.
This is much clearer in Ender's shadow and seqaules.
I'm not sure how this is supposed to relate to my point.
Yes, I know that Bean is the supreme strategist, while Ender is the supreme commander. So? Your point?
Incidentally, Parson was never called the perfect strategist, either. He's the perfect Warlord, whatever this might include.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormthorn
What if you havnt read Enders Game but you have read Enders Shadow?
Well, that works, too, though I think Game provides better evidence for my point.
__________________
LGBTitP Supporter In a Wonderland they lie, Dreaming as the days go by, Dreaming as the summers die - Ever drifting down the stream - Lingering in the golden gleam - Life, what is it, but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll
Ender dropped it on his enemy's home base, Parson did it on his own.
Oh, I see.
Well, in either case the result was the obliteration of both forces, with the exception of the commander in question and his closest friends.
__________________
LGBTitP Supporter In a Wonderland they lie, Dreaming as the days go by, Dreaming as the summers die - Ever drifting down the stream - Lingering in the golden gleam - Life, what is it, but a dream?
- Lewis Carroll
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Ender's Game
