Goodreads | Carl's review

Carl's review

Speaker for the Dead (Ender's Saga, Book 2)
by Orson Scott Card

[close]

blog this review

Copy/paste the text below into your blog.

<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7967.Speaker_for_the_Dead?utm_medium=api&amp;utm_source=blog_review" style="float: left; padding-right: 20px"><img alt="Speaker for the Dead (Ender's Saga, Book 2)" border="0" src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/photo.goodreads.com/books/1165651993m/7967.jpg" /></a> <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7967.Speaker_for_the_Dead?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">Speaker for the Dead</a> by <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/589.Orson_Scott_Card">Orson Scott Card</a><br/><br/>
  <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/5023817?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review"><h3>My review</h3></a>
  rating: 5 of 5 stars<br/>I need to reread this, and then move on to the sequel.  Extremely different than Ender's Game-- in fact, I was tempted to give it less stars.  I really like the premise and the ideas in this novel, but it lacks a bit of the well-woven simplicity of Ender's Game-- though that is not to say that this isn't well woven.  I think I would call this "anthropological fantasy", though perhaps "anthropology" isn't the right term, as it is more about the clash between human and alien culture than simply human culture.  Actually, I think there are all sorts of interesting things to discuss in this novel, particularly as "anthro-spec-fic"-- the clash with the "aliens" in this case comes not solely from simple cultural differences (though it does in many ways look like a first-contact narrative between many of Earth's own cultures-- I could imagine Card's time as a missionary contributed to this sensitivity), but from actual biological differences, differences in the organism itself.  It is a common place of post-modern criticism that we live in a world of signs, that our world is divided up and recognizable linguistically, that is to say, culturally-- but this cultural structuration of the world is not air tight and can be deconstructed.  I think we can also say that it can be disrupted by the "Real", to borrow a term from Lacan (I hope I am understanding the concept right-- I'm probably butchering it).  Our linguistically, culturally structured world is the "Symbolic", the world of intersubjectivity which is mediated by cultural and linguistic structures, while the "Real" is that which escapes the Symbolic, which escapes language and culture, the invisible lines between terms, much like the lines with which one draws a figure are not the picture itself, are not "seen"-- instead we see a head, figure, whatever the drawing is of.  I think another way to describe the "Real" would be the raw material, the "world" apart from or before it becomes a "world" in human understanding, like raw sensation without meaning, like when you are looking at something but see nothing, because you don't know what you are seeing.  It seems to me that the cultural encounter in Card's book is thus doubly contorted-- not only do we have a cultural barrier, but the "Real" intrudes and becomes prominent and obnoxious in it's resistance to the Symbolic order, as both parties to the encounter have not only different "worlds", different symbols, modes of communication, modes of being, but as organisms they are completely different-- if, as existential phenomenology and cognitive linguistics suggest, it is our existence as embodied organisms which enables that ontology which is "human-being", then at the heart of this novel is a disjunction at the level of the organism which is not recognized and which thus leads to several deaths.  
<br/>There is a lot more going on in this novel, but I'm afraid it's been too long since I read it.  I think there is a ton of potential in this sub-genre which I'm calling "anthropological scif-fi/speculative fiction"-- and I think there need to be more people from the humanities writing it!  Obviously hard science is necessary for this genre, but I think that the soft sciences have tons to contribute to speculation on alien ontologies.  I think I've even seen some articles by the SETI institute moving in these directions-- probably influences more by Cognitive Linguistics than Phenomenology, but it's a start!
<br/>Now I need to reread this and get to the sequel.
  <br/><br/><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/49620?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_review">View all my reviews.</a>

Carl's review
rating:
bookshelves: fantasysci-fi
recommended for: Fans of Sci-Fi, anthropology, cross-cultural contact, and SETI

I need to reread this, and then move on to the sequel. Extremely different than Ender's Game-- in fact, I was tempted to give it less stars. I really like the premise and the ideas in this novel, but it lacks a bit of the well-woven simplicity of Ender's Game-- though that is not to say that this isn't well woven. I think I would call this "anthropological fantasy", though perhaps "anthropology" isn't the right term, as it is more about the clash between human and alien culture than simply human culture. Actually, I think there are all sorts of interesting things to discuss in this novel, particularly as "anthro-spec-fic"-- the clash with the "aliens" in this case comes not solely from simple cultural differences (though it does in many ways look like a first-contact narrative between many of Earth's own cultures-- I could imagine Card's time as a missionary contributed to this sensitivity), but from actual biological differences, differences...more I need to reread this, and then move on to the sequel. Extremely different than Ender's Game-- in fact, I was tempted to give it less stars. I really like the premise and the ideas in this novel, but it lacks a bit of the well-woven simplicity of Ender's Game-- though that is not to say that this isn't well woven. I think I would call this "anthropological fantasy", though perhaps "anthropology" isn't the right term, as it is more about the clash between human and alien culture than simply human culture. Actually, I think there are all sorts of interesting things to discuss in this novel, particularly as "anthro-spec-fic"-- the clash with the "aliens" in this case comes not solely from simple cultural differences (though it does in many ways look like a first-contact narrative between many of Earth's own cultures-- I could imagine Card's time as a missionary contributed to this sensitivity), but from actual biological differences, differences in the organism itself. It is a common place of post-modern criticism that we live in a world of signs, that our world is divided up and recognizable linguistically, that is to say, culturally-- but this cultural structuration of the world is not air tight and can be deconstructed. I think we can also say that it can be disrupted by the "Real", to borrow a term from Lacan (I hope I am understanding the concept right-- I'm probably butchering it). Our linguistically, culturally structured world is the "Symbolic", the world of intersubjectivity which is mediated by cultural and linguistic structures, while the "Real" is that which escapes the Symbolic, which escapes language and culture, the invisible lines between terms, much like the lines with which one draws a figure are not the picture itself, are not "seen"-- instead we see a head, figure, whatever the drawing is of. I think another way to describe the "Real" would be the raw material, the "world" apart from or before it becomes a "world" in human understanding, like raw sensation without meaning, like when you are looking at something but see nothing, because you don't know what you are seeing. It seems to me that the cultural encounter in Card's book is thus doubly contorted-- not only do we have a cultural barrier, but the "Real" intrudes and becomes prominent and obnoxious in it's resistance to the Symbolic order, as both parties to the encounter have not only different "worlds", different symbols, modes of communication, modes of being, but as organisms they are completely different-- if, as existential phenomenology and cognitive linguistics suggest, it is our existence as embodied organisms which enables that ontology which is "human-being", then at the heart of this novel is a disjunction at the level of the organism which is not recognized and which thus leads to several deaths.
There is a lot more going on in this novel, but I'm afraid it's been too long since I read it. I think there is a ton of potential in this sub-genre which I'm calling "anthropological scif-fi/speculative fiction"-- and I think there need to be more people from the humanities writing it! Obviously hard science is necessary for this genre, but I think that the soft sciences have tons to contribute to speculation on alien ontologies. I think I've even seen some articles by the SETI institute moving in these directions-- probably influences more by Cognitive Linguistics than Phenomenology, but it's a start!
Now I need to reread this and get to the sequel....less

Like this review? yes flag

comments (showing 1-1 of 1)

newest »

date

message 1: by Carl

08/23/2007 03:36PM

Okay, I need to comment on my own review. Another thing I'd forgotten to mention about this book is the fact that Ender's new job is "Speaker for the Dead", which means investigating the life of someone who died and then telling their story. Sounds a bit touchy-feely and weird, at least to some of the other reviewers, I think, but I think it is kind of interesting. If I remember correctly it is caught up in some rhetoric about truth, finding out the truth, etc. Basically it adds up to retelling the narrative of a person's life in a way intended to give them one last chance to answer their accusers, etc. "Their side of the story". Considering that this novel is about the breakdown of communication and inability to understand, I think that this is particularly appropriate, this emphasis on narrative as a central part of both human epistemology and ontology, as well as the means by which we are able to see ourselves in someone else, to find that identification with the other that enables and smooths out this intersubjective existence.