From: Paul Grant (shade999@optonline.net)
Date: Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:24:41 MDT
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
On Behalf Of Charles Hixson
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:13 PM
Paul Grant wrote:
>...
> <me> Gentlemen; its a book. You can't use Orson Scott Cards
> fictional characters as a basis for sound judgements as they
> regard to genocide.... Besides, there are so many *real life*
> examples to choose from <historical examples>...
>
> omard-out
[charles] That's a good point... but it cuts both ways. In the
historical
examples one never knows the complete context,
<me> it can, ergo why people discuss history. At least that occurred
in our universe; thus its far more likely to be relevant. Thats the
nice
thing about history; there's so many different viewpoints to examine and
choose from, and hindsight is always 20/20.
[charles] whereas in the book one
knows, or can know, the complete context.
<me> Thats facetious at best; you're reading a fiction book. Unless you
are
the author, you have absolutely no idea what the complete context
of the book is; just what the author has currently decided to expose
to the reader. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate that a valid
comparison can be necessarily drawn from the book mapping to our
current reality. If they were doing a book review, than yes,
I'ld agree <within the bounds of the book>; they are however,
discussing real-life effects of the genocide of human beings.
Pointing out the fictional character had second thoughts while
nice, is really not that useful. Arguing the reason (or rationale)
the author used to generate that particular fictional response
might be. Using that rationale as conclusive proof however, is
not.
[charles] However, I think the "Ender's Game" referred to above was
actually a
short story, or perhaps a novella. It appeared in either Astounding or
Analog. The books followed decades later. But the error was shown in
the original story. (I must admit I never read the expansions into
books.)
<me>i've read the book (and the sequels); I didn't know there was a
short story
(original?) out there that was different from the book... In any event,
my
point is broader than this particular subconversation... too often I see
people
resorting to movies and books as a method for providing proof.. I would
rather
see our history (humanity as a whole) embraced and mined than have
others
consistently resort to fictional works. Shakespeare may have been
brilliant,
but he's not the *only* source for human psychology... and more relevant
than
repeating someone else's observations or themes is the ability to
generate
ur own analysis from available (stuff that u directly observed) events.
The process by which such insights are arrived at is *far* more
valuable,
and incidentally, more complete (insofar as u understand the nuances
necessary in your own particular viewpoint or version of history).
You could of course, just tack an IMHO on that last paragraph..
One final thought; what the media and movies (and yes, even
fictional works in their heyday) represent does not indicate the
norm in reality. Its a shame people have such difficulty in
observing the difference.
omard-out
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 30 2003 - 15:34:26 MDT