Skip to main content

Ender's Game

Ender's Game

One of things that is supposed to be notable about Ender, is that he encourages other kids to think for themselves and chip in. He is even reminded of this just before his biggest battle against the bug aliens. So what does he in fact do? He leaves all his other commanders' forces to be sacrificed, and therefore left with nothing to individually command. How nice it would have been to see the focus pulled off him, as he ostensibly wishes, and actually witness some of the other commanders make decisions. But we don't get that, and instead the sense that all we need is one great leader, and everyone else might as well being prompt, order-applying drones. A good pilot or good gunner might get some special accolades--nice flying/gunning, ace! especially you, cutie!--but not for any property of leadership. Maybe one of the reasons he has so many sympathy for the Queen alien, is that he's effectively looking in the mirror. The two boss commanders, vastly superior to everyone else, in discussion, in camaraderie, after battle: "I alone know how you feel." 

He's upset over his genocide, but how about making his own species shrug its shoulders and leaving Earth's purpose mostly all to him? We could try, but he'd do it ten times better anyway, so what's the point. I'll let an actual drone do my part, and be in the bar remembering the days when human volition had a demonstrable point. You all can go about still worshipping him if you like. 

In actual truth, though, he--or his representatives in history--is not really special at all, atypical. But rather instead brilliantly representative of the current appetites of the people. Hitler was in in Germany, only because he wanted it as bad as Germans did. He directed the German "finger," this way or that. But the choice wasn't his whether or not to pull out the gun. If he was distinctive, they'd actually look past him, picking even an imbecile over him, to imagine as superhuman--which is what they had done for him, after all--if he's as thirsty for punishment, murder, and massive wasteful human sacrifice as self-punishment for the terrible sin of having enjoyed life too much, as they were. The best leaders, the ones remembered as singular, as genius, always end up being the bloodiest ones ... the point is, they delivered the gross blood bath we wanted, and for as much we're willing to dress them up, however preposterously, as if they were fundamentally neat-freak creatures of tactics and calibration. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...