Quote:
Originally Posted by I, Brian  I didn't enjoy Ender's Game, but I was glad I read it (you'll know why if you've read it  ).
However, there are a number of "sequels" to the novel.
From what I hear of the other novels, though, they continue certain arcs and threadlines raised in the original story.
My predicament is a certain cynicism - the story is told, the end. Therefore why erad the others?
Or, perhaps, more pointedly - the sequels as cash-ins on a theme. After all, if OSC really considers Ender's Game to have been so incomplete and so requiring the exploration of the other character viewpoints from such an extent, then why not simply rewrit the works into a single new version of Ender's Game?
Or is that too simplistic?
I can appreciate the familiarity of the world must provide an appealing stage for Orson Scott Card to live out his philosophies and ideologies. However, I can't help but wonder if perhaps he shouldn't be looking to do more expansive world building to explore these concepts, rather than focus so much on rehashing a tale that was properly told?
Thoughts invited... |
Ender's game was good, maybe a little better than good. But honestly, the best thing about Ender's Game is that it set up Speaker for the Dead. Speaker is probably my favorite all time book. I LOVED it. After Speaker, it sort of lost my interest. Xenocide was good, not great. I never finished Children of the Mind.
As for the shadow series, who cares? Ender's story is what we cared about, and to a lesser extent Bean had a good story to tell. Bean was an interesting character in Ender's Game. But every time I tried to read some of the Shadow books, bleh blah gah.
Ender's Game = Good. Speaker for the Dead = Amazing. The rest... well... bleh blah gah, with a little ugh thrown in.