Ender's Game

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by sarakoth

My point is that the humans couldn't have accomplished what was accomplished in Ender's Game. For reasons why, please go look at my first post.

They didn't travel that far for decades. To them it was a much shorter time span due to relativity.

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

They didn't travel that far for decades. To them it was a much shorter time span due to relativity.

Relativity doesn't matter.

They still need to carry fuel and supplies to travel for decades. You do know that it requires a huge amount of force to push something close to the speed of light and the faster something's going, the more mass it has (relativity). So as speed aproaches c; indirectly, force required aproaches infinite. To sustain an invasion force of thousands if not millions of soldiers for decades or even centries would require a huge amount of supplies. Even energy wafers would take up a lot of space on that scale.

[Commonmind]

Is it not a bit self-defeating to debate the believability of a science fiction novel? Granted, the author is accountable for doing his best to tell his story with some semblance of believability, but still, I'd assume that most of the Ender's audience was more concerned with the story than the inconsistencies in the science - the popularity of the novel in the science fiction community is enough to lend some truth to that assumption.

If you want to debate science hit one of the other forums and take up a discussion on Wheeler, Greene, Kaku, Gell-Mann or Yang's currently controversial theories on matter and space/time.

[WhiteWolf]

That's true. Card's audience is more story conscious, just as he is more story conscious as an author. Which isn't to say that the nuts and bolts of a science fiction story should be ignored, but they are not his strength, nor what draws readers to his books.

But your point is well taken. I'm not a big fantasy reader (not yet, anyway), but I would liken it to fantasy readers debating the believability of magic in a book. It's not exactly the same thing, but there are core segments of hard science fiction readers that are bothered by the way other writers approach their technical details.

Then again, any conversation is worth having unless there is nothing to offer and nothing to gain.

[Marvolo]

Originally Posted by WhiteWolf

That's true. Card's audience is more story conscious, just as he is more story conscious as an author. Which isn't to say that the nuts and bolts of a science fiction story should be ignored, but they are not his strength, nor what draws readers to his books.

But your point is well taken. I'm not a big fantasy reader (not yet, anyway), but I would liken it to fantasy readers debating the believability of magic in a book. It's not exactly the same thing, but there are core segments of hard science fiction readers that are bothered by the way other writers approach their technical details.

Then again, any conversation is worth having unless there is nothing to offer and nothing to gain.

A very good point. No one knows if ships will ever reach speeds like that described in SF novels. But honestly, I've read hard SF novels that have more questionable science. Stephen Baxter, an acclaimed hard SF author, has stories where ships bounce around at FTL speeds and a hard bridge connects the moon and earth. In the same story the two main characters are the same person a few years apart, existing in the same time. The novel is Exultant by the way, and it is a great read.

Ender's Game is a great SF novel. Exultant is great as well.

Since you brought up fantasy, I'll make another point as well. There really isn't a lot of difference between the two genres. Fantasy is just more honest about not being possible. The technology used as plot devices in most SF novels is so far from our current tech level that it might as well be magic for all the chances of it ever becoming as commonplace as it is in those novels. SF authors (and I love SF, don't take this the wrong way) wrap their magic in nuts and bolts to make it seem possible, but ships travelling that fast, or FTL, is honestly nearly pure fantasy, as you pointed out Sarakoth, so I concede that point. But it doesn't make me enjoy the novel any less. They're all fantasy novels as far as I'm concerned, and they read better that way as well.

I know this contradicts my earlier post trying to defend the science behind the novel, but I don't care. I post stupid things some times (well... a lot really and chances are I'll think this post is stupid in a few days).

[sarakoth]

Originally Posted by Marvolo

A very good point. No one knows if ships will ever reach speeds like that described in SF novels. But honestly, I've read hard SF novels that have more questionable science. Stephen Baxter, an acclaimed hard SF author, has stories where ships bounce around at FTL speeds and a hard bridge connects the moon and earth. In the same story the two main characters are the same person a few years apart, existing in the same time. The novel is Exultant by the way, and it is a great read.

Ender's Game is a great SF novel. Exultant is great as well.

Since you brought up fantasy, I'll make another point as well. There really isn't a lot of difference between the two genres. Fantasy is just more honest about not being possible. The technology used as plot devices in most SF novels is so far from our current tech level that it might as well be magic for all the chances of it ever becoming as commonplace as it is in those novels. SF authors (and I love SF, don't take this the wrong way) wrap their magic in nuts and bolts to make it seem possible, but ships travelling that fast, or FTL, is honestly nearly pure fantasy, as you pointed out Sarakoth, so I concede that point. But it doesn't make me enjoy the novel any less. They're all fantasy novels as far as I'm concerned, and they read better that way as well.

I know this contradicts my earlier post trying to defend the science behind the novel, but I don't care. I post stupid things some times (well... a lot really and chances are I'll think this post is stupid in a few days).

At least you're being honest (jk)

Most people who post stupid things are too arrogant to admit it (that doesn't exclude me)

[biodroid]

I am looking to buy "Speaker for the Dead" and Xenocide. Will it be worth my while getting them because I really enjoyed Enders Game and I am aching to read the next 2 books? Are they as good as Enders Game or better or maybe not as good?

[WhiteWolf]

They are excellent, but for different reasons, as they are very different from ENDER'S GAME. SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD is extraordinary in its own right, but sometimes it throws people off who are looking for a book to be very similar to ENDER'S GAME. XENOCIDE and CHILDREN OF THE MIND should really be considered one long book, and read back-to-back.

Overall I loved the series, as much as the first book, but keep an open mind when reading them and don't have any pre-conceived expectations about them.

[biodroid]

Cool, so there is more than 3 books I am assuming? I loved the first one and can't wait to get a copy of the others!

[vervain_ashe]

Originally Posted by WhiteWolf

They are excellent, but for different reasons, as they are very different from ENDER'S GAME. SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD is extraordinary in its own right, but sometimes it throws people off who are looking for a book to be very similar to ENDER'S GAME. XENOCIDE and CHILDREN OF THE MIND should really be considered one long book, and read back-to-back.

Overall I loved the series, as much as the first book, but keep an open mind when reading them and don't have any pre-conceived expectations about them.

I completely agree. Also, there are three (technically four if you include First Meetings) in the Ender's Series, and as many in Bean's series. The books read more smoothly if one reads the one set and then the other set. Otherwise, the reader gets moved around too much, and it can be confusing.

There is no book quite like Ender's Game. Yes, the others follow up well, but as White Wolf said, the reader should keep an open mind and not have any preconceived ideas about the following books. For one, Ender grows up. Ender's Game is written about Ender, the boy; but Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide are about Ender, the man.

Definitely worth the read though. Even if the reader never ventures into Bean's books, Ender's three are a good trio.

[biodroid]

I assumed its almost like a coming of age series, I kind expected Ender to grow up since Enders Game takes place over a few years of his life. I just need to source it at a bookshop somewhere but all I get is book 3 which is pointless reading 3 then going back to 2. I guess I will have to look at amazon.