Enderp's Game starring Harrison Ford

Your link seems to be only the United States -- which does nothing to contradict that it's been translated into multiple languages. That doesn't happen with a book unless it has a worldwide reach. Same withe the multiple printings: books don't get reprinted unless they sell well.

It has also been adapted into comic book format, and obviously now is becoming a film.

Obviously books aren't as universal as films, but amongst books it's pretty darn popular.

I wasn't trying to start a point-by-point debate with you, but if you want to contend Ender's Game has anywhere near the exposure of Star Wars, you've set yourself a huge task.

Any steady seller will go for additional printings, but that doesn't indicate volume (it helps minimize inventory, which is a big deal in the book industry because it is essential a consignment business, which means it's really an inventory management business - and that's was Borders was before it opened it's own store: "Book Inventory Systems" running inventory for several independent book stores).

Also, the comic market is actually pretty small, especially relative to population growth since its peak. A current title selling 70k/month can make the top 10, but even just 15 years ago, that wouldn't make the top 25, to say nothing of the early 90s/late 80s peak (though as I recall, a bit earlier than that, a popular Batman would peak at 650k). That's the numbers of regular comic book readers getting old - because you never see kids in comic book store anymore, some stores don't even let in unaccompanied minors these days.

(Comic update: just did a quick check of recent sales, only 9 of the top 65 sellers in October were not tied in to a recent-ish movie).

I think you hit on the right point:

.
I'd qualify that further as amongst sci-fi books, but having managed a major Border's Sci-Fi and Fantasy section for several years in the early 90s, I'd say anecdotally that it wasn't very popular, just a steady selling backlister - 12-15 copies would last more than a year (which means inventory was too high for my store).
I have no sympathy for the spoilee but Ender's Game isn't even in the realm of Star Wars novels in terms of exposure.

Of course it isn't. Why are we even debating this.

I have no idea what happens in this book, so every revelation is a spoiler for me - now I'm not that spoiler adverse, but I remember people crying foul at that other place when HBO was turning a really popular fantasy series into a tv-series and some people expected geeks like us to be familiar with the story.

There the cries of "spoiler" where loud and instant. So what do I know. Use spoiler tags or tag the entire thread - I don't mind, but some do.

I see all these posts, but all I hear is A BLOO BLOO BLOO

This shit is taught in schools. It is more mainstream than any sci-fi this side of Star Wars [edit: and if Star Wars is your bar for how mainstream something has to be before we can talk about it outside of hushed tones, you need to seriously evaluate what you've done with your life] (which really isn't sci-fi anyway but I digress).

GUYZ OLD YELLER DIES IN THE END SPOILERS A BLOOOO BLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

I fuckimg hate that cartoon when quoted. It confuses me.

Ender's Game came out in 1985. You had your chance.

Either that...or I just hear you everywhere.

Think about it.

Not everyone was born when you were.

I'm sure there are a lot of people reading this thread who were born late enough that they've had no chance at all to read a 200-page novel from 1985 until now.

I have no idea, likewise nor do you, that's why it's such a silly point for sinfony to make.

Actually I'm pretty sure that everyone here has had ample opportunity to drop 3-4 hours on a popcorny space adventure novel in between learning the language sufficiently to process Card's adolescent prose* and reading this thread.

* not necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely a YA book

There are far worse things on this forum than Ender's Game spoilers for the mythical twelve-year-old reader you're imagining stumbling into this thread. In any event, to avoid running afoul of your ironclad reasoning, I will refrain from spoiling Hamlet, as I had planned to do with my Ophelia-as-underwater-vampire fanfic.

Whoops.

Not to derail the spoiler hater thread, but:

Card -- who is supposedly a horrible, terrible human being (I knew he was Mormon, and that was bad enough) -- could really write neat, evocative stuff early in his career. I love Ender's Game enough that I don't bother trying to wax "OMG STARSHIP TROOPERS WAS NAZI GERMANY AND HEINLEIN WAS A FASCIST!!!!" hysterical over it. It was a great book that really moved me as a younger scharmers. And I can remember another excellent story of his about a weird infant thing with adult intelligence that could crack any password. And hey, the Alvin Maker series was good enough that it inspired Iron Maiden's last decent album, "Seventh Son".

Carry on.

For me, Ender's Game still holds up, it's one of my favourite sci-fi books ever. I don't give a shit about the author's politics.

I keep reading this thread as Eniderp's Game and wondering if it's an MMO where female characters have a lower staring str and int, but a higher starting dex and wis.

I kind of like that the thread hasn't gone into planes-taking-off-from-treadmills territory, as the topic sometimes goes that way. And I definitely don't want to be the one who sends it that way, so this is 100% YMMV commentary. But Ender's Game doesn't hold up for me, having enjoyed it when I read it. Both because of critiques of the novel specifically as well as OSC generally (and because the former linked it to the latter.)

Having quickly googled I think this article by John Kessel was the big one. Someone with a fond memory of the book may regard it a bit sceptically at first. Cumulatively, though, I think it makes a good case that OSC was actually making OSCian arguments about morality as a concept (and that these were both objectionable in themselves and tied the book into his whole creepy-didactic moralist oeuvre).

This bemused the hell out me, and reminded why I stay far, far way from the self-absorbed wankery of science fiction fanfic-level "analysis". I mean, when one of your footnotes consists of:

"6 We are told that Bonzo is pronounced “bone-so,” not “bahn-zoe.” But for an American audience of the Reagan Era, when this book was published, the most common association for this name would be the name of the chimpanzee from the 1951 comedy that Ronald Reagan starred in, Bedtime for Bonzo."

...it's clear that somebody is willing to really, really stretch a point to make an attack on a guy.

Bonzo footnotes notwithstanding I think it makes a good case that Enders Game actually does articulate weird themes about morality and moral responsibility that I didn't find very up-front when reading the book (in spite of the whole situation vis a vis the Buggers obviously being one of the main points of interest in the novel).

I guess one the areas one's mileage may vary on are whether one thinks the book does have actually have a theme to expound on morality and intention, whether that message is, on reflection, a bad one, and whether or not articulating an off-putting moral message ties Ender's Game in with the broader issue of OSC using his books as a vehicle for bad moralizing. I think it does, it is, and it does, respectively.

I should clarify this with the fact that I tend to skip the bits between Ender's brother and sister. They add nothing to the story,

Moreso, because as the reader you're supposed to understand that Ender really is blameless even as he picks up his cross. If YOU were in Ender's place, you'd be even more awesome because you'd both have and be able to (ab)use all that power and be assured that it's okay because you're really a good person AND you wouldn't need to feel the guilt like he does.

Ender's Game sucked. Speaker for the Dead is better while being utterly insane.

Speaker for the Dead creeped me out too much. Ender's Game had its share of dubious themes, but within the context of Terrible Things Which Must Be Done To Save Everyone they didn't undermine the book too much. Speaker for the Dead was just weird, as the title makes clear: the guy who almost exterminated another species gets to be the one to speak for them? And that's somehow redemptive? Ugh.

It's been quite a while since I read it, admittedly.

I actually didn't and still don't mind that angle. Ender recognized what needed to be done and did it, despite his previous acts; that's the mark of a good person, to rise above the past and work towards a better future.

This might not be the intended message, though. :)

The issue isn't creepy/non-good protagonist, it's creepy/non-good author.

I honestly don't understand why the author matters in the slightest.

Speaker for the Dead lacked any semblance of pacing, while ensuring it was so separated in terms of time and characterisation from Ender's Game to be meaningless as a sequel. I liked the idea though, perhaps I'm more cynical of it simply because the books thereafter are so godawful.

Well, on general principles I'd argue that there are limits to the "I don't like Wagner but I like his music" argument. But that's a separate discussion that can itself fill up a thread.

I was using "the author" as shorthand there for "the author and what he's doing." The issue isn't Ender's being good, it's the author using Ender's oft-emphasized goodness, and ability to be good in the situation the author has contrived, to make a bogus point about the nature of goodness and moral consequence.

All of his works are fucking awful to be fair.

Perhaps my reading of the (first) book is too shallow. I recall it stating what it was about during the military officer interludes, which is that when our backs are against the wall we'll do whatever it takes to survive. I don't remember it portraying Ender as good, only rather that he tries to hold onto some semblance of humanity while being turned into an efficient killing machine who then tries to find redemption for his acts.

The issues weren't at all evident to me reading the book absent other knowledge either, and when I read Kessel's article, plus one or two other things, it initially seemed like OSC-critic kremlinology looking around for thiings to not like about the guy's one good novel.

I was certainly aware that Ender is established as a sympathetic character, but that's hardly unusual in and of itself. And I was aware that the central action vis a vis the climax of the novel set him up to be in an odd situation - responsible for this first strike but in an odd single-blind sort of way. Which just seemed an interesting and unusual way to freight moral consequence onto a sympathetic innocent character. Nothing so sinister in that.

I obviously have no issue with people reading the book and having the same reaction I did. It's just that, as I posted up thread - the Kessel article, leaving aside the fact that the author doesn't like Orson Scott Card, made me note (in a way I hadn't while reading) that the author is actually being quite clear about setting Ender up as an especially innocent killer (and genocide) in a way that essentially makes a bogus argument about the nature of responsibility for killing and genocide. That doesn't mean you read the article and think "Ok I don't like Ender now," because Ender's put in a contrived situation (and contrived himself) in such a way as to make the whole christlike genocide concept work.

It's a bit like how a "ticking bomb scenario" can be used to make an apparently compelling "moral" argument for torture; the refutation isn't that the hypothetical torturer is an immoral person, it's that the contrived scenario and the argument they're making are faulty and bad.

Oh, Ultimate Iron Man. You SOOOOO STUPID.

Never mind spoilers ... everyone should pop down to your local library and borrow Ender's Game and read it before this movie comes out and ruins it forever for you. Added bonus: OSC doesn't get any money this way!

Seriously, I have low hopes for this movie. The director is Gavin Hood, none of whose previous films have led me to believe he has to chops to adapt this book at all satisfactorily. I'd rather see them use the book as a jumping-off point for a totally different story than trying to depict the inner world of a child, something that's challenging for the best directors and screenwriters on the planet.

It's been a long time since I read the book, but I don't remember the book depicting the inner world of a child. I seem to remember Ender being portrayed as abnormally mature for his age due to the pressures surrounding him & his unique background.

Definitely mature, but he's still a child, and what I meant was not necessarily that the book takes us into his imagination, but more that it spends a lot of its time inside his head, letting us feel what he's feeling without him having to talk it out with someone. One of the key aspects of the book is that Ender is isolated and lonely. Expressing his emotional state wordlessly will be tough, especially for a child actor.

Which is why instead it will undoubtedly happen in long monologues expressed to his newly introduced love interest.

The trailer is here:

Well I wasn't sure either way until "NOW!" and I felt my interest decline. We shall see.

I do want to see this. I wonder if it will be made with an eye towards sequels or not though.

Also, Ford sounds almost so subdued in that clip that you don't recognize his voice.

Almost nothing is made without locking people in for 3 movie deals anymore.