Science Fiction Fantasy Chronicles: forums - View Single Post

brian · 28th July 2003, 08:54 PM

My objection about the children being precocious was not about their abilities - it was simply that children have a very characteristic - some would may say unpolluted - way of looking at the world. I see a lot of naivety in children, simply because they do not have access to the life experience necessary to shape a lot of behaviour.

My own children are very intelligent and well-developed - my four-year old has been doing maths books for 6 year old's, and has a great fascination for the solar system. She's very well developed mentally, but she still looks on the world with child's eyes.

I guess my complaint was that the children in "Ender's Game" always seemed too close to only being a projection of an adult - I didn't see Orson Scott Card as successfully being able to bring alive the mind of a 5-year old (as Ender was at the start, if I remember right). There were events to do with children, but not much in terms of children relating to the world. That's what I was trying to comment on.

Or maybe I've just being overly critical, as usual.

The short story "Flowers for Algernon" was raised in another thread - when I read that around 16 years of age (and therefore less critically!) I was utterly convinced that Charlie Gordon was faithfully represented in the extremes of IQ. I still remember a scene where he is in a restaurant with a nurse commenting on the mathematical rhythms of Bach, and she wonders about how his intelligent has grown but he still lacks the ability to relate to people because he hasn't had that experience.

My point being, I felt like if Card had written "Flowers for Algernon" then Charlie Gordon would have acquired charisma and social aptitude with his improved intelligence. Perhaps that analogy will help illustrate what I mean. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Quite likely I would have been far more convinced that Ender was 5 if I had read that at 16 instead of/as well as "Flowers for Algernon".

Either way, feel free to disagree with me. It's simply how I experienced the book. I know my position is somewhat heretical.

28th July 2003, 08:54 PM	#12 (permalink)
brian Administrator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 960	Re:Orson Scott Card My objection about the children being precocious was not about their abilities - it was simply that children have a very characteristic - some would may say unpolluted - way of looking at the world. I see a lot of naivety in children, simply because they do not have access to the life experience necessary to shape a lot of behaviour. My own children are very intelligent and well-developed - my four-year old has been doing maths books for 6 year old's, and has a great fascination for the solar system. She's very well developed mentally, but she still looks on the world with child's eyes. I guess my complaint was that the children in "Ender's Game" always seemed too close to only being a projection of an adult - I didn't see Orson Scott Card as successfully being able to bring alive the mind of a 5-year old (as Ender was at the start, if I remember right). There were events to do with children, but not much in terms of children relating to the world. That's what I was trying to comment on. Or maybe I've just being overly critical, as usual. The short story "Flowers for Algernon" was raised in another thread - when I read that around 16 years of age (and therefore less critically!) I was utterly convinced that Charlie Gordon was faithfully represented in the extremes of IQ. I still remember a scene where he is in a restaurant with a nurse commenting on the mathematical rhythms of Bach, and she wonders about how his intelligent has grown but he still lacks the ability to relate to people because he hasn't had that experience. My point being, I felt like if Card had written "Flowers for Algernon" then Charlie Gordon would have acquired charisma and social aptitude with his improved intelligence. Perhaps that analogy will help illustrate what I mean. Or maybe I'm wrong. Quite likely I would have been far more convinced that Ender was 5 if I had read that at 16 instead of/as well as "Flowers for Algernon". Either way, feel free to disagree with me. It's simply how I experienced the book. I know my position is somewhat heretical.