I just finished '
Ender in Exile' the new book from Orson Scott Card (that Mia got for Christmas). If you haven't read the book yet but plan to (Mia) you might want to skip reading the rest of this post. Also, if you are a huge fan of
OSC and cannot bear to hear any criticism of him, you might want to skip reading this post.
But for the rest of you that know one of my erstwhile hobbies is literary criticism, I invite you to join with me in examining the text, meta-text, and author.
First, the text itself is worth reading. OSC is an excellent writer and his ability to develop dynamic characters -- even in supporting roles. I use the word dynamic in the deliberate literary sense. His characters show growth through the course of the narrative. And his main characters are well rounded (again in the literary sense).
The main thrust of my critique is that this book is not a narrative but rather an exercise in world-building exposition.
(SPOILER ALERT!!!) The main plot can be summed up thusly: Ender does stuff. And if I wanted to be verbose about it, I would say: Ender does stuff really well.
My sense reading through this book is that OSC wanted to flesh out more of the universe now that he's had more years to explore it in his own mind. My first clue were the exaggerated chapter intros. Typically these were short emails or other documents that provided some context without being part of the main story. When I was reading 3-page chapter intros, I knew something had changed. He used them to expound on points that couldn't be worked into the main storyline. Then, the book is littered with internal monologues that details an arcane point that doesn't really fit into the main flow of the story. But fortunately, his characters are all so introspective that he's able to use them to voice the tidbits of knowledge he's had tucked away. And, other scenes seem entirely constructed to give him a platform for retrofitting new information about the Formics that expand on their telepathic/hive structure. I won't even comment on his moralizing.
This is coming out much harsher than I mean it to. It's not that I think OSC is a poor writer, he's proven many times over that he is not. (And who would I be to judge him as one anyway?) But he does seem to have fallen into a style that I've seen many times in my work as an editor for a magazine that published world settings for role-players. He's put so much time into the details of the world that he needs to push them all out to the audience, fill in all the cracks, show us just how intricate his vision of this alternate universe is.
And when that happens, the narrative suffers. It has to because it takes a back seat to the exposition. The clever insights and cool details that aren't really relevant to the storyline but can't be left out because... because... because!
I have a second criticism as well. Related to what I felt was a lack of plot, was a lack of action. Part of what made Ender's Game such a seminal piece of work was the action. Ender was constantly moving, one challenge to the next, one game to the next, one army to the next, one war to the end. And through it this incredible tension of whether or not he could handle it physically, mentally, and emotionally.
Was he going to win the war? Yes, of course, that's a given. But was he going to be emotionally and mentally broken after he did so? Quite possibly. The 'happy ending' of the book still held (still holds when I re-read it) the terrible thought that even in victory the hero might be defeated. It's a wonderfully delicate tension and would be nearly impossible to re-create.
In this book, the storylines are all about manipulation and who can do the best political maneuvering in order to achieve the outcome they want. And of course we already know that Ender's skill is in understanding people so thoroughly that he can crush them. We know what the outcomes will be but there is no tension about the consequences. We are simply along for the ride as Ender continues to out-subtle his various (but rarely nefarious) antagonists.
And the minor antagonist characters (as they all must be minor in comparison with Ender) are what I would have to describe as 'collectively flat'. The definition that I would provide is that they all share the same characteristics of being both willing to overtly manipulate the people around them to reach their goals and they are cognizent and introspective about doing it. This turns everyone into a psuedo-narrator when we are shown their perspective because rather than seeing their actions, we are also privvy to their thoughts about why they are taking those actions, what outcomes they hope to achieve, and who they are either hurting or helping by doing so.
Again, my feeling is that OSC enjoys orchestrating these encounters because if he's describing the most brilliant children in the world and how they overcome the overwhelming odds against them ergo he must be a step above to conceive of the entire scenarios from start to finish. Again, I don't blame him, it's a wonderful position to be in and I should like to try it sometime. But, on the level of the meta-text, it feels as though he's using the auspices of narrative to show-off.
Now, since I've disparaged the book so thoroughly, let me also say the good things about it. First and foremost, it is an engaging read. I finished the book in 2 days. Secondly, it does add depth of some of the loose ends surrounding the end of the war and questions raised about how would Ender really deal with the knowledge of what he'd done. And, as Mia likes to say, he writes great characters. The most compelling reason to keep reading is because you do care about Ender. Just like the people within the story that almost immediately find themselves caring about him, so too as a reader it's nearly impossible not to admire Ender. Even when you know he's going to come out on top, you want to be there with him, to have some of his glory shine out through the pages and illuminate your own life.
Ender is one of the most enduring characters in modern science-fiction because we both see ourselves in him and we admire the traits in him we cannot imitate.
