Jump to content

Menu

discussing Enders Game


Recommended Posts

My kid finished reading "Enders Game", about a chapter a night, then watched the movie yesterday. During the book I googled questions to check for comprehension. But if I understand what he's reading aloud, why would I think he doesn't? When I asked a few questions it seemed like he understood the little scenes that make up the book, giving me some little details.

 

Finally, I asked "why did Ender have to destroy the aliens first and then why did he turn around and save the alien baby?" He answered, " Ender had to destroy the aliens because they needed to fight the human race because they saw old movies and thought humans were violent. After he destroyed their planet and killed them all he found an egg. He saved the egg. Maybe it's a mother in the egg and she'll have more babies. Ender didn't have to kill the baby because it had never seen the movies and didn't think the humans were bad."

 

This is defensible from the book as it was one of the theories of why the aliens attacked us the first time, and reasonable answer why the egg could live. But I thought Ender saved the baby because he learned that the aliens were trying to communicate with him before he destroyed them, he just didn't realize it in time.

 

Another thing: my son said that Peter changed in the book. My son wouldn't let me call Peter a "bad guy" in the beginning, saying "he's not a bad guy, he's a mean kid". Which, since my son loves. both superhereo movies and stories about children, I have to agree with what he's saying, the charachter of a story villian and the charachter of a mean kid are quite different. Peter was bad, but not a villian. And when I read the story, I thought, well,.., I thought of Peter as a villian, and thought Valentine decided to support him because "only a certain type of people fight for the power to rule earth, and as power hungry people go, Peter's far from the worse." My son only saw Peter as a mean kid, and says that Peter changed during the story.

I thought I'd throw this out there because classical education is all literature based, and I keep hearing about all these discussions. I'm just throwing this out there to see if there's anything I should know about discussing books. But since what my son said was defensable from the book too, do I just call it comprehended? He read it his way. I read it mine. Or is there some kind of discussion you can teach me to do? Is there some kind of right or wrong way to read or discuss stories? We talked about a few other things too. I asked a few questions I found online. He was surprised Mazer Rackham had tatoos on his face in the movie, so that got by him. But when I read I don't always get every little thing either. Is that a problem?

Is there something we're supposed to do now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like he understood it just fine.  His answers are accurate and, particularly with what he said about Peter, he thought about what he read and came to his own conclusions.  It's definitely not a problem to miss small details.  Everyone does when they read.  I didn't remember Rackham being described as having face tattoos in the book (or at least that part didn't add to my mental picture of him so I forgot it).  I think you covered everything.  Comparing differences/contrasting with the movie might be a good discussion.

 

Also, just because someone reads aloud properly doesn't mean they are comprehending what they are reading so that's not a good gauge alone.  Sometimes I zone out while reading aloud.  I read fine, but I couldn't for the life of me tell you what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree... Your kid is what 6 or 7... maybe younger? Yes he did an excellent job following the literal story line. With the baby alien he even understood some of the nuances...that is quite advanced. However it sounds like he missed the whole point of the novel. I haven't seen the movie but I imagine it also missed the point, much like Starship Troopers somehow morphed into a pro-fascist movie.

 

The whole point of the book is moral ambiguity.

 

Why didn't the adult protect any of the kids?

Peter was a classic psychopath... not mean... not misunderstood... DSM-IV psychopath or if your beliefs allow evil. Is cooperating with a psychopath ever justified for the greater good?

When does the end justify the means?

Why did we destroy an entire race after one misunderstanding?

What is the role of propaganda in society?

Why can Peter and his sister manipulate adults?

After rejecting the battle school goals, why does Ender consent to further "training"?

How can Ender and the old guy consent to "knowingly" commit an act against their own beliefs?

 

Ender's Game is often used at TIP or CTY as an entry point for philosophy and ethics courses. I wouldn't have my younger kid read it. I think it requires more maturity and emotional sophistication for even gifted kids to fully comprehend. Following the plot on a surface level is not enough. It is a complex book for gifted 10-14yo's to wrestle with. I think it would be very uncommon for anyone younger than that to be prepared to grasp the meaning.

 

PS. I understand gifted kids can read ahead. My point though is that take say LoTR... the surface story and the deeper meaning are analogous and reiniforce one another... If a kid reads it at age 7, he will miss some of the deeper meaning but if/when he rereads it at a latter point the meaning will be the same (duty, sacrafice, good,evil, etc) only his understanding of it will be deeper. With Ender's Game, the rollicking good story and the deeper meaning are contradictory. This makes reading ahead much more problematic.

 

ETA: One further consideration maybe Ender is a classic tragic greek hero. Perhaps you could discuss whether he is more like Achilles or Odysseus.Rage is certainly a theme in both the Illiad and Ender's Game  The Greeks are always great for contextualizing our own vestigal warrior culture. This would allow you to grapple with the larger issues in a vaguely developmentally appropriate way...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm cracking up over the previous post because I read Ender's Game about 3 years ago at age 33 and pretty much I got out of it what the OP's kid did.  Guess I "missed the whole point" too lol

 

As I edited to add on my original post... Is the Illiad or "The Rage of Achilles" a rollicking good tale or a cautionary tale about glory, militarism, hate, and hubris... I'm sure traveling bards, much like Hollywood, played up which ever aspect was more profitable for a given audience. But, that doesn't change the fact that there are deep themes in the work that younger kids, no matter how gifted, will not grasp.

 

If you want to view Ender's Game as a hyper-violent greek-style myth to be revisited multiple times, that's fine. I would prefer to wait and read it critically at a later age. I don't think the writing justifies multiple readings, unlike some classics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to view Ender's Game as a hyper-violent greek-style myth to be revisited multiple times, that's fine. I would prefer to wait and read it critically at a later age. I don't think the writing justifies multiple readings, unlike some classics.

 

But, um, that was kind of my point.  I *did* read it only once and at a later age (33) and got out of it pretty much what the OP's kid did.  Sometimes a story can just be a story.  My dad loves to tell about how when he was in college they read - and totally and completely picked apart - Lord of the Flies.  And then they read an interview with Golding where many of those things they had interpreted it to mean were referenced and the author repeatedly said "well, that's neat" and stuff like that.  He intended it to be just a story.  The fact that people can read things into what is written and interpret based on their own experiences is fantastic.  But it doesn't always make it The Truth about the story.  Obviously you feel young kids shouldn't read certain books because they "can't" interpret them in ways you do.  But then adults don't necessarily read deep meanings into them either.  Should I have not read Ender's Game since to me it was just a story and didn't have some deeper meanings?  Or maybe I should try again when I'm older lol (though I wouldn't because while it was a decent book, I definitely didn't love it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think of lit 'discussion' as discussing the different 'takes' on the book.  Did you tell him how you saw it differently?  The way you describe it sounds more like a comprehension check than a discussion.  IMO lit discussion should be discussion of the different interpretations and being able to support your theory from the book - just yours and his interpretations to start out with and getting into a deeper levels and other people's interpretations as he can understand them, and argue for or against them.

 

On Ender's Game itself - I haven't read it for a while, but I thought Ender didn't put together that he was actually killing off a species until it was too late (it was all just computer war games) just like the hive mind didn't realize it was killing mindful entities until after the first 'wave' (not understanding that there could be single entity minds) - and the way I remember it the baby queen knew and understood that the rest of her race had been killed by Ender himself.   So obviously I went a lot more toward a interspecies (mis)communication followed by forgiveness/redemption interpretation.  Perhaps I am being influenced by Speaker for the Dead though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, um, that was kind of my point.  I *did* read it only once and at a later age (33) and got out of it pretty much what the OP's kid did.  Sometimes a story can just be a story.  My dad loves to tell about how when he was in college they read - and totally and completely picked apart - Lord of the Flies.  And then they read an interview with Golding where many of those things they had interpreted it to mean were referenced and the author repeatedly said "well, that's neat" and stuff like that.  He intended it to be just a story.  The fact that people can read things into what is written and interpret based on their own experiences is fantastic.  But it doesn't always make it The Truth about the story.  Obviously you feel young kids shouldn't read certain books because they "can't" interpret them in ways you do.  But then adults don't necessarily read deep meanings into them either.  Should I have not read Ender's Game since to me it was just a story and didn't have some deeper meanings?  Or maybe I should try again when I'm older lol (though I wouldn't because while it was a decent book, I definitely didn't love it).

 

Look. I'm a STEM guy... I hate over-analyzing books... however that doesn't mean that regardless of authorial intent that some books have clear, undebatable themes. LoTR is about duty and sacrifice, good and evil. To Kill a Mockingbird is about racism and justice and the long arc of history. Ender's Game is about militarism and moral relativism. The Lord of the Flies is about the evil that lurks in the hearts of men. How much you want to explore or ascribe these themes to characters or events is debatable. However claiming that these themes don't exist rather misses the point.

 

Furthermore, these themes get integrated in to the reader's world view regardless of whether they critically engage with them. This is why I am skeptical of reading books like Ender's Game with younger kids. The lack of critical engagement is problematic. If you miss the deeper irony, the surface level views are problematic. Hopefully, your kids will reflect on it later but that is not assured.

 

If these issues don't trouble you... great. All I am saying is that *I* wouldn't read this book with a younger kid. You should feel free to do what works for your family. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Lord of the Flies is about the evil that lurks in the hearts of men.

 

According to the interview my dad read with the author, no.  Golding intended it as a story of what he thought would happen if a bunch of boys was shipwrecked with no adults around.  Many people have felt the theme was evil lurking in the hearts of men.  But it wasn't the theme Golding himself was trying to get across.  I think it was Ray Bradbury who, when responding to a question asked of him, said that if you write a book with the intention of making a point or getting across a certain theme, you are doing it wrong.  Write first to entertain.  The points and themes will follow in people's minds.

 

And so we have the problem with analyzing literature and saying *this* is the theme (and, worse, "what did the author mean by...").  Usually there are many themes and different people will see different things.  That's why I love the book group I go to.  Others always see something I didn't and make me think about the book in a different way.

 

I personally wouldn't have a little kid read Ender's Game, mainly because I didn't love it.  And, again, I didn't really get the deeper meanings of Ender's Game when I read it as an adult.  I never read it as a kid, just as an adult.  It was an entertaining story.  A weird story.  It's totally not assured that a 30-something will always get more out of a book than a 7 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On Ender's Game itself - I haven't read it for a while, but I thought Ender didn't put together that he was actually killing off a species until it was too late (it was all just computer war games) just like the hive mind didn't realize it was killing mindful entities until after the first 'wave' (not understanding that there could be single entity minds) - and the way I remember it the baby queen knew and understood that the rest of her race had been killed by Ender himself.   So obviously I went a lot more toward a interspecies (mis)communication interpretation followed by forgiveness/redemption interpretation.  Perhaps I am being influenced by Speaker for the Dead though.

 

I agree... there is that fundamental ambiguiguity... did he know? should he have known? if he "didn't know", why was he having a mental breakdown during the event? I haven't read the book(s) in well over a decade, but this fundamental ambiguity surrounding most of the events in the book is the real strength of the work. It allows the reader to come to their  own conclusions on the "rightness" of the book. I'm not ascribing a fixed right or wrong. I just think that some reflection on the issue is called for.

 

Personally, I can't view Ender as "evil", so I agree with you. Orson Scott Card has described his modus operandi as creating a very sympathetic character and then torturing him and I think this book reflects that tension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree... there is that fundamental ambiguiguity... did he know? should he have known? if he "didn't know", why was he having a mental breakdown during the event? I haven't read the book(s) in well over a decade, but this fundamental ambiguity surrounding most of the events in the book is the real strength of the work. It allows the reader to come to their  own conclusions on the "rightness" of the book. I'm not ascribing a fixed right or wrong. I just think that some reflection on the issue is called for.

 

Personally, I can't view Ender as "evil", so I agree with you. Orson Scott Card has described his modus operandi as creating a very sympathetic character and then torturing him and I think this book reflects that tension.

 

Part of a lit discussion (imo) includes the fact that not every interpretation has to agree or mesh or be the only right one - because I would argue that my interpretation is not about moral ambiguity at all but misinterpretation/miscommunication of intention  - on the 'bugs' side of thinking they were just firing a 'warning' shot to another queen in the first wave by killing her workers - and on the humans side for thinking anyone killing so many people like that must be out to exterminate the human race and so needed to be exterminated instead for self-preservation.    No moral ambiguity, no evilness.  Just pure and simple 'talking past one another'. 

 

But this type of discussion does show how easy it is to try and push the child to your way of thinking.  It is, as Plum Crazy says, a fine line to not take away from the child's opinions.    I try to keep it on the discussion level not the teacher/student level but I'm not always successful.   Usually I have the most success when I know others opinions to throw into the discussion along with mine - to make it more than just about mine vs. hers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I didn't remember Rackham being described as having face tattoos in the book (or at least that part didn't add to my mental picture of him so I forgot it).  

 

I am pretty sure they weren't mentioned. I'm not even sure if his Maori background is mentioned in the original book. If it is, it's a throwaway line. If one was familiar with Maori culture, then they might picture facial tattoos as an extension of that information, but that's way too much nuance for a young kid unless they happened to have that exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the movie in here in NZ, and the entire audience laughed out loud when the actor started using Maori words.  They were very badly pronounced.  Clearly, they did not ask anyone familiar with the language for advice; any NZ school child would know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is interesting about this discussion, is that it misses what I considered a major issue with my children reading the book.  Ender, a profoundly gifted child, was left to fend for himself and ended up killing 2 kids.  I wanted to know if my children connected with Ender, and could see things through his eyes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How you talk about stories at 7 is not the same way you discuss literature at 11 which is again nothing like when they are 16. What you describe for a young child is absolutely great. Does it represent all there will ever be in discussing lit as they get older? No, but your discussions morph and grow just like your child's development. They start making connections between various authors, history, style/technique, allusions, multiple levels of meaning......things that are completely unimportant at 7, but add dimension when they are older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ender didn't realize it wasn't another test at the end, that's why he was angry. He needed to win the games, but he had already talked to Valentine about trying to communicate with the buggers. I think he thought he had time to work it out. I think he got confused that he was dreaming about the buggers and the buggers showing up in his video game, he thought he was thinking about them to "know his enemy", when it turns out later that those instances was the bugger Queen communicating with him.

 

My son did mention that it would be different if Ender had "a communication thing" to talk to the buggers. He was more upset about the human soldiers that died than the buggers (so was I when I read it.) So far the main difference between my kid and me was that he thought Enders response was dependant on how the buggers saw humanity (as described above) and I thought it was less personal, Enders race saw the buggers as a threat.

My son wouldn't know about a psychopath. The skinned squirrels would have gone over his head. He's seen skinned deers hanging around peoples porches every hunting season. He would have only noticed the bullying at the beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He missed the killings of the kids. I said, "I thought Ender killed Bonzo." He said, "He broke his bone and made him rise" (off the floor). He said that after reading the book. In the movie they showed Bonzo's glazed eyes in the shower, but then it looked like he was laid out in what could be mistaken by a 6 yr. old as a hospital bed when Ender and Petra looked at (his body) through a window. I'm not sure how my son missed Ender telling Valentine "I'm a murderer" at the lake. Like I said, I miss stuff when I read too. I have a lot more years practice, so I wouldn't have missed the large plots. He is doing WWE 2 so he's decent at picking out story lines, but this is a bigger story with a lot more happening.

 

I know "five in a row" is its own thing, but I was thinking about using it for books like this, and Peter Pan, and the Hobbit, and I think I have Treasure Island, and The Little Princess. That's what I have around the house, I think. I don't have library access right now. I asked a few questions during the story, and he told me few parts. I know he got some and missed some from the story. I think that's the point of the "five in a row" thing, right? I'm about to read aloud.

 

I'm trying to think like Plum Crazy and Laughing Cat and hold his hand a little bit while letting him get his own thing out of the book. At one point my son said Ender lied about hurting a boy, but I think he must have misunderstood the scene where Ender was lied to about the damage. My son thought the teachers didn't say much or do much. Most of the scenes did take place between the children, but you and I know the adults were very involved. My son didn't think the teachers had a big role in the story. He noticed things like Ender asking, "Why wasn't I trained for Dr. Device."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you might want to stop and ask yourself what is the goal of teaching literature in your homeschool. Is it about checking off boxes and getting right answers, or about learning to love good books?

 

MCT says, "Is what you are doing literature, or is it only an assignment? If you are answering questions, it is an assignment. If you are questioning answers, it is literature."

 

He also says that classic authors don't write their books to be STUDIED. They write to be read, and they write in rich language that should be folded back onto the content in a holistic way. "Each book is designed to open itself."

 

One challenge here is whether Ender's Game "counts" as this kind of classic. Like raptor_dad points out, it kind of seems to fall short of the quality of writing, coherence, universality of themes that classics usually have. I think it merits a good probing discussion but maybe not a really comprehensive study of every little nuance between the covers?

 

If you want to have a conversation with your son about this, have the conversation. Like Socrates, keep your mind open: "I only know that I know nothing." Your son's theory about the ending is defensible, but it's not what you thought? Then find the point in his theory that doesn't ring true to you, and pull it out to discuss -- without appealing to the Google authority, no saying "but that's not what the lit analysis site said!" But make sure to be humble enough to accept his viewpoint without steamrolling him with your authority either. He thinks that Peter changed through the story and you don't? If you really care, have him find support in the book. Or ask more probing questions to flesh out his theory. Or just be satisfied that he clearly read the book and engaged with it! The latter would be my preference.

 

Over time you'd like your student to be able to engage with the book at all levels of Bloom's taxonomy. But at 6, even a gifted 6, the kiddo's mental processes are mostly still in the "grammar stage", which is naturally lower-order thinking on the taxonomy. Recall and comprehension, etc. But I find a lot of gray area between stages, and I know my 5 and 6yos can do *some* analysis and synthesis, so I'd definitely want to start stretching the bounds of higher-order thinking. As 8 says, it's a process, so don't expect lit discussion at 6 to look exactly like it does at 15. Also note that it takes just plain life experience to even be able to register some stuff, like the motivations of the characters. As SWB says, I paraphrase, "Middle school students don't usually know why *they* do what they do, how should they be expected to know why the *character* did what they did?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PS. I understand gifted kids can read ahead. My point though is that take say LoTR... the surface story and the deeper meaning are analogous and reiniforce one another... If a kid reads it at age 7, he will miss some of the deeper meaning but if/when he rereads it at a latter point the meaning will be the same (duty, sacrafice, good,evil, etc) only his understanding of it will be deeper. With Ender's Game, the rollicking good story and the deeper meaning are contradictory. This makes reading ahead much more problematic.

 

I just wanted to say that you cannot assume the child will not understand the deeper meanings based on age.  I read LotR at 7, and I did comprehend the deeper meanings.  Honestly, that is why I would not personally let my kid read Ender's Game at that age; even more than the disturbing events in the story, the deeper themes are sometimes quite dark and painful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure they weren't mentioned. I'm not even sure if his Maori background is mentioned in the original book. If it is, it's a throwaway line. If one was familiar with Maori culture, then they might picture facial tattoos as an extension of that information, but that's way too much nuance for a young kid unless they happened to have that exposure.

 

They were not mentioned because the author didn't decide that character would be half-Maori until long after the book was published. Ender's Game was just the first of many books written with those characters. 

 

 

As for comprehending the main point of the book, Ender saved the Hive Queen at the end because he never intended to *actually* destroy an entire species. He and the other children thought they were playing a game (hence the title) when they destroyed the bugger home planet. He had no idea there were real lives at stake at that time- he went in for the kill as a big "F-you" to the adults who had been controlling him all his life.

 

 

For people who have read Ender's Game but want something with more "literary merit" I'd suggest the next two books, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. There are some beautiful themes and big ideas that would make for great discussion with a gifted high schooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For people who have read Ender's Game but want something with more "literary merit" I'd suggest the next two books, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide. There are some beautiful themes and big ideas that would make for great discussion with a gifted high schooler.

 

Although I was fine with ds reading Ender's early, I would NOT be okay with Speaker until older. The torture of the piggies is described in far too much detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I was fine with ds reading Ender's early, I would NOT be okay with Speaker until older. The torture of the piggies is described in far too much detail.

You remember the series better than I do. My kid read Enders game because he picked up Shadow of the Hegemon from my shelf, which only has Terry Brooks, The Wheel of Time, and some Ender books. I vaguely remembered Shadow of the Hegemon being more mologue and told him, "it's a series, Enders Game is the first book." The only other two I have are Enders Shadow and Shadow of the Hegemon. I remember Enders Shadow explains that Bean has a disease that makes him keep growing, and that it will make him die young. Do you remember if Bean died in that book or not? I don't think my kid will pick from my shelf again soon, because it took him a few weeks, but it would be good to know, just in case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read much past Speaker.

I think Card started getting too weird in later years and I don't like supporting his personal beliefs by buying his books.

 

This. And the characters really flattened out, each playing a caricature of themselves.

 

Texican, is it time to find a good used book store? :) My kids' shelf is slowly getting more stocked with the likes of Bambi, Jungle Book, Beverly Cleary and EB White. My own shelves have Narnia, Jane Eyre, My Antonia. There are a lot of options for when he gets bored of library books and Tales from the Odyssey. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should get our library back soon. Our small town has an annex that borrows books from the county, but it's been under reconstruction for about a year now. I've been buying the best used books from the library in the nearest big town. That's why

he's got stuff like Wishbone and Bobby vs. The Girls, and I have the old sci-fi/fantasy that I remembered liking once upon a time.. He still has some kids books left on shelf before we run out, stuff like Esperanza Rising, and something called Poppy, which has a picture of a mouse on the cover dressed up like a little warrior. I've bought a few books online, like Peter Pan and A Little Princess. I can't wait to get our library back so I can ask for Greek, Egyptian, and Roman myths. LoL, before we lost the library he read "Icarus", he was younger, and he kept calling them Icarlos and Dickerous instead of Icarus and Daedulus. I corrected him, but I was cracking up over it.

He reads fiction for an hour at bedtime, and I bought the colored fairy set, that I read while they color on the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bean does not die - at the end of the 4th book in that spin off series  he goes off in a space ship with some of his children that have the same issue and you are left hanging on whether a cure could be found before he died - I see there's now another book after that point but I was pretty much done with that series by that point - I liked Ender's Shadow but not the rest of that series.  Ender's Shadow has a lot more kids killing kids though - with 1 kid being a psychopath (far more than Ender's brother) who becomes the villain of the series - and Bean is portrayed as far more aware of the adult's agenda's throughout than Ender.  

 

Personally I'd recommend looking for something else to interest him :thumbdown:

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plum Crazy, I only read the free sample from the Blackwell's philosophy. Neat. Neat part about what Enders Game reflects about educational philosophies. I don't know mine yet, so I read this board a lot trying to figure it out.

 

It said how The Giants Drink demonstrated the Socratic method reintroduced by Paulo Frier. It said Ender was fine with this method while it was clear that there was goals, but got lost by this method when everything became peaceful. Before this I thought he was done with the game because he wouldn't let himself rest. Was this because he had a vocational education rather than liberal? Was it because his type of soul was attracted only to games where there were goals and objectives? He hated games where "the rules and objectives are known only to (the teachers)," but he would angrily play those, but not the peaceful mind game once all objectives seemed to be gone. (I remember he went back to it later, but when it served another objective related to the queen and the baby).

 

The excerpt brings up the ol' educational nature vs. nurtue (vs. device to advance the plot).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...