"Ender's Shadow" Orson Scott Card

“People above you, they never want to share power with you. Why you look to them? They give you nothing. People below you, you give them hope, you give them respect, they give you power, cause they don't think they have any, so they don't mind giving it up.” 

― Orson Scott Card, Ender's Shadow

I was searching for a post in my blog on Card's "Ender's Game" and discovered that I had read it before I started the blog in 2009.  This book, "Ender's Shadow", is told mostly from the perspective of Bean and is parallel story to the one in "Ender's Game," which is told mostly in first person by Ender.  Card intended for both stories to stand on their own, but having read "Game" first, I'm not sure I can say that they could.  On the other hand, now that I have finished "Shadow", I want to go back to it to see this story from Ender's viewpoint again.

The background to the story is that a species of ant-like creatures formally called the Formics, but colloquially referred to as the Buggers, had attempted two invasions of Earth and were repelled both times.  The countries of Earth have united to prepare for a third invasion.  Because of the distance between the Bugger home world and Earth, it has been generations since the last invasion and during that time children have been bred with the skills and trained with the knowledge needed to defeat them when they come back.

Select students who have passed certain tests are taken to Battle School to continue their education and training to prepare them to be future commanders.  Ender, a 12-year-old boy, has already become a subject of hero worship and envy at Battle School when Bean, a mere 5-year-old, arrives.  Bean grew up on the streets of Rotterdam without the benefit of family, regular food or a place to live.  He joined a crew of other street children that evolved under a 'papa', Achilles.  It is clear, though, that Bean is extraordinary, and this came to the attention of Sister Carlotta.  She has been recruiting children off the streets for a long time for Battle School under the assumption that the talent needed to defeat the buggers could be found there as much as through the breeding system that had been established.

The story continues to what happens to Bean as the youngest and smallest student of Battle School, Sister Carlotta's quest for Bean's parents, and the politics behind building an army to defeat an unbeatable foe.

This book is equally as fun to read as "Ender's Game" had been.  Even already knowing how the battles would turn out between the different 'armies' at Battle School, the telling from the different perspective made it just as entertaining.  Either "Shadow" spent less time on philosophical monologues or I was more receptive to them this time.  The setup for a sequel to the book, and there has been a "Shadow" series just as there is an "Ender's" series, was more blatant that it needed to be.  In the introduction, Card mentions that "Ender's Game" became a book for young adults more than the others in the series even though it was not his intention, and he surmises that is because the subsequent books are about adults rather than children.  I haven't pursued the sequels to "Ender's Game", and his comments make me glad that I haven't.  I might read other of Card's books, but I don't see myself reader more about Ender and Bean.

After finishing the book, I looked around a little for the movie version and about Card.  I was interested to find that Card is opposed to laws that are friendly to homosexuality and same-sex marriage.  Some of Card's religious references in his books make some sense due to his Mormon upbringing, but it is somewhat strange that he chose a Catholic nun as a character.

I was thinking the other day about the politics at my own institution.  A trustee asked me what the response of the faculty was to a proposal for us to adopt a statement of inclusion, that is, that the institution be supportive of all groups of people regardless of any qualifier.  I said that there were no negative responses to the proposal and the comments were all about whether the statement was inclusive enough.  I realize that no one would have said anything against the proposal even if that was their thought, because of the overall political atmosphere of the college.  People on the right probably can't express their views openly.  My thought was whether our statement of inclusion was inclusive enough if no one could speak their mind about not wanting to be inclusive.

So, what is the connection between that and this book?  There is a quote attributed to Card that hits at the same thing.  Although he has spoken out against same-sex marriage, he said the point is moot now that the Supreme Court declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional and "it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute."  Agreed.  I think it is this open-minded, yet principled, thinking that makes Card's work so intriguing.