Ender's Game (spoiler light)

Having just finished Ender's Game I want to organize my thoughts about the story and it's mechanics. I learn daily that as a writer I read differently; now I care about the structure of a work almost as much as the story it contains. I'll keep separate my thoughts on Orson Scott Card's politics from those on his writing. His books and essays on writing inspired me to put the stories in my head down for others to read and (hopefully) enjoy.

Ender's Game tells Ender's story from a third-person present-tense viewpoint. With only two exceptions (both instances being Valentine), we see only Ender's thoughts and emotions; Card presents everything else as Ender experiences it. Despite the amount of growth and change Ender experiences, the book is an event story; it starts when Ender is accepted into Battle School (to prepare to fight the buggers) and ends when Ender defeats the buggers. Telling the story from Ender's perspective and having Ender as both protagonist and main character makes sense; only Ender experiences and sees everything. For another character to tell the story, Card would either have significant gaps during the narration of the command school or Card would have to switch narrators during the story; both choices feel inferior to me. Choosing the event structure also makes the most sense; Ender's importance lies in his potential to defeat the buggers once and for all. Focusing on Ender's changes (telling the story using the character structure) would dilute the series of crises that forged Ender's spirit and honed his instincts. (Although I do agree that the events that happen after, on the unnamed colony world ARE significant to the story, they represent almost a second climax). The structure reminds me of Lord of the Rings; Frodo getting thrust into the events of the world and him leaving the world after having left his mark bookend the narrative of the three books. His leaving Middle Earth after Mt. Doom was a necessary step to highlight his story's conclusion; much like Ender Wiggin's discovery and subsequent journey conclude Ender's story (at least in term of the first book_.

Card's prose does not dwell on description; it displays a verbal frugality that drives the narrative and allows evocative language double purpose: not only does a detailed description add to the texture of the story but it also draws the reader's attention by demonstrating value. These descriptions seldom occur. Card describes action much as he does scenery or people - sparsely and efficiently. His strength is his ability to invoke in the reader empathy for Ender's plight throughout the entire novel. The one weakness that my attention always comes back to is how unchildlike Ender acts, even after we are told he is still a child. On some levels, it's that maturity and fresh intelligence that drives the story but occasionally I found myself stepping out of the story to wrestling with some act Ender performs.

Nonetheless, Ender's Game earns its place at the top of Sci-Fi food chain. The story compels and is carried along by tight prose focusing on the important and never giving the spotlight to something which should remain in the obscurity of the footlights. If, by some chance, you have not read this book it should be moved to the top of your "to read next" pile.

What IS Sci-Fi?

So what IS Science Fiction? We bandy the term about all the time, yet I believe it's a somewhat amorphous term we all nod our heads at and don't actually define. Sci-Fi means different things to different people; while that's as it should be it DOES make for some confusion, whether that's between author and publisher, book seller and customer, or fans.

Whenever I think of Sci-Fi, the first thing that comes to mind is advanced technology: space flight, planetary colonies, ansibles, etc. Obviously, this has to be examined relative to the time the book was written. (Very little of Jules Verne's technology is cutting edge NOW, but at the time it was written? THAT's a different story.)

Aliens also automatically mean Sci-Fi to me. Life forms from another place and drastic mutations are just as significant as spaceships in defining the genre.

Orson Scott Card, in his book How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy, discussed several boundaries defining speculative fiction. The essence of that discussion, and the (admittedly) over-simplified definition that results, is as follows:

Science Fiction includes all stories that take place in a setting contrary to known reality while following the same rules (and logical extrapolations therefrom) as our own.

What do you think? Accurate? Weak? Too exclusive? Too inclusive? Let me know!

Top 100 SciFi Books of All Time

Austarnet.com has a user-updated list of the Top 100 Sci-Fi Books; new users can vote for ten books off of a list of about 150. The current Top 10 is about as solid a list as one could expect:


1 Orson Scott Card Ender's Game [S1] 1985

2 Frank Herbert Dune [S1] 1965

3 Isaac Asimov Foundation [S1-3] 1951

4 Douglas Adams Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy [S1] 1979

5 George Orwell 1984 1949

6 Robert A Heinlein Stranger in a Strange Land 1961

7 Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451 1954

8 Arthur C Clarke 2001: A Space Odyssey 1968

9 Isaac Asimov [C] I, Robot 1950

10 William Gibson Neuromancer 1984


Tell me what's missing? What's here that shouldn't be? How should the order be changed?