Dune - just a funny little observation, and a question

Surfing my groups/"watched" and fishing around the site and I happen to notice that I own/or have-read-and-would-like-to-own all of the books in this group's "Most commonly shared books" except the FIRST one: Dune by Frank Herbert. (I actually haven't read ANYTHING by Frank Herbert)

I consider myself to be predominantly a hard SF reader, mainly from the "Golden Age" (Heinlein (most favorite), Asimov, Clarke, etc) with a core of newer favorites (Orson Scott Card, Kim Stanly Robinson, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson, Tad Williams (Otherland only)).

I'm looking for a new author to fall in love with...(marking time by reading pulp anthologies from the 50s/60s) - preferably someone PROLIFIC with BIG FAT books (I'm a fast reader).

So my question - Dune? Is this a must-read? Should I put it on the list?

(If it helps I am not a big fan of Ray Bradbury (Fahrenheit 451 aside) or Philip K. Dick)

I happen to be rereading this for a SF as literature class at the moment. I don't know that it's a must read, but I'd consider it a classic with some exceptional qualities. (edit - but then, I don't think in terms of must reads, so listen to the list makers! Dune, the first book, is definitely a unique and masterful contribution to SF.)

Unlike some SF, the characters are very well drawn and complex. There is the technology of existing on a desert planet and some interesting weapons technology for the hard SF fan. There are several well developed cultures (desert Freman, competing royal houses, religious order). There's political intrigue and machinations within machinations. There is some very interesting interplay between the various religious, royal, and native factions.

#1

Dune is a must read. It has lots of great ideas from a wide spectrum of areas - politics, religion, and nature all feature heavily - great plot, great characterisation, and an evil character that you love to hate. What's not to like?

The rest of his books in the Dune sequence are more divisive though, with opinions about his other books more divided, and same can be said for his other works. But if you like the first one, you should read the rest at least once.

Also Dune is by far the best thing he ever wrote. Most of Herbert's output was distinctly middling at best. The first three Dune books were above that level, and the first was the clear best out of those three.

Here's a barely-related question. Does anyone know of any sites that provide approximate sales figures for books? I think that Dune is one of SF's best-selling books.

One of the sources of the wikipedia article mentions 12 million copies worldwide.

I consider the book a must read but I'm a fan of Herbert's entire ouvre. Whatever you decide, read Frank's Dune books first before you get into the more recent stuff by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson.

Frank Herbert was the most thoughtful sf writer of that generation and it shows in his works. Dune is his best known and most popular book, but it's not his best one. Some people think the series tails off in quality, but it actually improves - although God Emperor of Dune is a book that divides people. His non-Dune works are worth reading - there's something in there for everyone. Lots of people like the space opera of Whipping Star and The Dosadi Experiment, but I prefer the simpler The Green Brain and The Santaroga Barrier.

Oh, and don't bother with the recent Dune books by Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson. They're shit.

Herbert wasn't an esp. good writer..but Dune the 1st was a wonderful job of world and culture building bound up w/ a planetary ecology and is v. absorbing.

I'm one of the many that gave up on the sequels after not finishing several of them..And didn't like his non-Dune books at all. Anyway, by all means buy the first and then check a few others from a library and see how you respond!

(when any of us say something like "not an esp. good writer" or the contrary that's obviously a personal and not an "absolute" evaluation!!!- in most cases). We did buy a new copy of Dune (25th yr anniv. edition) when my wife's copy of the 1st paperback edition became totally unreadable from mold/dust/age..and yes, rereading. if we'd had the 1st hardback,THAT we would've kept ~!)

I've got the Dune series on my current re-read list. I haven't read the series since college with the exception of the first book. From what I recall, the first book is the best with the remaining as merely diversions, until you hit Chapterhouse which gets interesting again (but I'm going from around 20 years of memory). I also have some vivid imagery of Green Brain but haven't read that on since high school.

Personally, I've always thought Herbert's Dune series (not including the subpar stuff his boy and that other guy wrote) is about as epic and FAT as science fiction has ever really gotten without becoming silly. I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said he didn't know anything comparable to Dune other than the Lord of the Rings. The entire series spans thousands of years and yet Herbert has always been able to link the main characters in each book to the ones in the previous. The books are also quite varied as well. Where as some of the books deal with quite a lot of character development, internal reflection and broad politics, others are much action packed and exciting. Then there's the one thats boarderline scifi mystisism. I can't help comparing modern epic scifi with Herbert's Dune series. It is absolutely a must-read for any scifi enthusiast.

I would say the first book is essential reading for SF fans but after that I really wouldn't bother. The first one ties up nicely, if I'm remembering correctly, and the sequels I read (the 2nd book and half the third) just didn't stand up as well.

I wouldn't say Herbert was a great writer either (agreeing with Bob #8) but he could certainly world-build like a sumbitch...

#1

Dune is a must-read. You said you like Asimov so I would liken it to the Foundation series in that the first book is the best. The rest of the series is good, but doesn't match that initial excitement.

I don't think in terms of "must-reads" either, but in sci-fi Dune is, if anything is.

Thank you all for your kind and thoughtful answers. Sounds to me to be a "must-read" - from being a decent example of the author's work and an absorbing read in its own right, and from its historical relevance to the genre. SO I just put in a mooch request for it on BM - Thank you all again for your input.

I think the only reason I never read it before was that it wasn't in Dad's SF collection (6-8 shelves of SF and "Dune" wasn't on it - have to ask him about that sometime) and then I was chasing down works by other authors I knew I liked.

PS
>12 dlweeks: I re-read the entire Foundation series (including prequels and and sequels) regularly. Although not my favorite examples of Asimov's work, I think that they are some of his most read and well-known and have a certain place in SF "culture" (i.e. you understand a lot of subconscious references in later works when you realize that many writers grew up reading certain "big" works that shape them). But, I wouldn't recommend them to people who "don't read SF" as an introduction to the genre.

I think Portia's just put her finger on one of the problems about the perception of the genre. In times past, when asked "What is it with this sci-fi stuff anyway?", fanboys would point to what they regarded as the classics of the genre - Asimov, Heinlein and (sorry) Clarke - and then wonder at the resulting howls of derision.

Those howls of derision have stuck, of course; but there are enough intelligent fans around now for the same question to be met with a more intelligent direction of the first-time reader to something more substantial.

(And we can still point people to "goshwow" stuff like Banks and claim that the 'scifi' trappings are 'ironic'...) ;-)

Yeah, that's good, Robert.

Some folks have opined that Heinlein might be acceptable today for his juvenile SF, to get kids started on the genre but I disagree. I think Heinlein has dated as badly (or worse) as the rest of the Golden Age lads and I think kids would be completely turned off the genre if he was somehow held up as someone worthy of attention. I'm sure many of you have read some of the juvie sci fi stuff out there today--Philip Reeve, for example--and it's MILES beyond HAVE SPACESUIT, WILL TRAVEL, etc.

Of the Big Boys, I think Arthur C. Clarke remains the most readable and relevant. CHILDHOOD'S END, 2001, a collection of his short stories, I might point a 14 year old at those old beauties and not feel I'm doing the genre (and the kid) a grave disservice.

What I find interesting is how many SF authors besides ABC (Asimov, Bradbury,Clarke) are now recognized. Yesterday's Chicago Tribune crossword puzzle had "SF Author David" for Brin.

I had no idea Brin was THAT well known.

My question, of course: WHY?

#16 - agree totally..I didn't like Heinlein as a young reader and like him less now. AND as Cliff points out there is a wealth of excellent YA oriented SF out: Reeve, Pullman, Garth Nix Shade's Children, Sleator, Dickinson, HM Hoover, Lowry, Duane's mix of SF/Fantasy,Steven Gould, L'Engle, O'Brien Z for Zachariah, Ender's Game, NIght Sky Mine, Le Guin, John Christopher, Nancy Farmer, the Firebirds Anthology ed Sharyn November, Pat Murphy's there and back again, some early Mahy.....
....
both my wife and son liked The Moon is....that's one i haven't read and probably should, as they both agree it's easily their fav. of his stuff.

>19 bobmcconnaughey: While I DID enjoy Heinlein as a young reader (and he is still my most favorite author) I rarely recommend him as a first SF read. I do have a "loaner" copy of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress I give out to non-newbie SF readers who are familiar with the genre but haven't read Heinlein.

For those new to the genre I am more likely to hand them my "loaner" copy of Ender's Game. Others I might recommend (depending on my knowledge of their other reading tastes) - L'Engle as a "transition" author (she is not actually on my SF shelf), Rainbow's End by Vernor Vinge, Kim Stanley Robinson, or Neal Stephenson.

My lads enjoyed ENDER'S GAME a lot--and they're not into the SF end of things usually. That's the ONLY Orson Scott Card book I'd let in the house.

The man falls into the slightly-better-than-Anderson-Zahn-but- still-complete-shite tier of writers...and THAT is hardly a ringing endorsement.

And the fact that he's a complete prick doesn't help...

#21 - Cliff,

Orson Scott Card And the fact that he's a complete prick doesn't help...

Why? What's he done? I'm not trying to start a debate here. I really know nothing about him except that he's a Mormon and wrote the Ender books and the Alvin Maker series.

My friend recommended Card and that is how I got into SF. So I think it is in fact a great way to enter the genre. I was also warned to stop at Ender's Game and not bother with Speaker for the Dead. I didn't, and kind of regret it a little.

#1
I agree with you that the Foundation series shouldn't be recommended early on. And I should mention I am also a historian so the first in the series appeals to me for that reason also.

#22 O.S. Card has made some statements in the past while that don't exactly portray him as, hmm, the most tolerant, liberal-minded fella.

Here's one piece from BOING BOING but I'm sure you can find others:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/02/27/orson-scott-cards-di.html

A bit of a P.S.

The BOING BOING link to the original piece that got Card in hot water seems to be kaput so here's another:

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

23>

I have fond memories of both Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, but knowing what I now know about Card's views I will never read either of them, or anything else by that hateful man, again.

#24, 25 - Cliff,

Aww man! I probably shouldn't have read that. (Well, I read about halfway through the article he wrote). I have Ender's Game in my TBR pile somewhere. Admittedly, there's no real order to my TBR stuff. Usually when I'm nearing the end of what I'm currently reading a title will bubble to the top. Having said that, Ender's Game has just toppled a couple of notches.

I know I shouldn't judge a work by what I know of its creator. But I'm still so boiling mad at Card that I just can't bring myself to want to read one of his books right now.

#27: I know I'm in the minority on this one (so many people seem to love it), but my life was not the least bit enriched by reading Ender's Game. It wasn't a bad read, but it was mediocre. I thought Speaker for the Dead was actually a somewhat better book.

ETA: Which is to say, I figure you'll be fine if OSC languishes for a while longer in your TBR pile...

But, listen, I read L.F. Celine and as far as pricks go, he makes Card look, well, under-sized.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that you should boycott an author because of extreme views or stupid biases. That wasn't my intent.

This writer supports free speech.

Even for pricks.

>1 PortiaLong: I would definitely regard the original Dune as a must read. After completing that one you can decide for yourself if you want to continue. I have read and enjoyed the rest of the Dune series that were written by Frank (published prior to his death). Taken as a whole, I think they are amazing.

The three volumes by Brian Herbert & Kevin Anderson that are immediate prequels to the original Dune are much less satisfactory. That is Dune: House Atreides, House Harkonnen and House Corrino. They wind up explaining too much, in a sense. They bring into the foreground people and things that were better as background in the original book. They don't really advance the plots or ultimately help explain any characters. I did not find those three satisfying.
There was a set of 3 that moved further back in time to set the scene (universe) or pre-history for The (original) Dune book. At some point I quit after reading The Butlerian Jihad, the first of that 3-part pre-history. The Jihad book (plot, concepts etc) wasn't bad but it did not seem compelling, in face of other demands on my time.

Then in 2006, the first of another trio was published. This one picking up the storyline at the point where Frank Herbert had taken it before his passing. That intrigued me, so I read Hunters of Dune. At the end of Hunters, I realized this last trio are touching back to the pre-history trio, tying together the whole thing, and based on Frank Herbert's outline and conception! That's amazing. I have just finished re-reading The Butlerian Jihad, and am most of the way through The Machine Crusades, 2nd of the pre-history. I want to polish of the pre-history and then I'll be ready for the grand wrap up!

So.. I am following the grand, 20,000-year vision of Frank Herbert. You should at least take the first step with Dune.
Then they discovered manuscripts and notes

Hell, if I had to agree with an entertainer's views to enjoy their works. I wouldn't be able to watch the majority of movies or listen to a lot of music or read ... I think the entertainment industry has an unofficial contest to see who can advocate the most illogical viewpoints. I like music, movies, and books by people I know I couldn't stand if I ever dealt with them personally.

29>

Free speech, yes. Card can say whatever hateful bigoted crap he wants.

But I have rights too, and one of them is not to read things written by hateful bigots.

#28 - you're not alone: I've yet to understand all the fuss about Ender's Game. And while I may support free speech, I don't see why I should support someone who has the views Card does - so he'll not be getting any of my money.

#30 - there are only two books which follow on from Frank Herbert's last Dune book - Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune. And few people believe they're actually true to FH's vision. He certainly wouldn't have come up with ridiculous ideas like brains in jars, or the godlike Oracle of Time, or even the Abbot & Costello robots, Erasmus and Omnius. The Brian Herbert & Kevin J Anderson books are dreadful and should be avoided. They add nothing to Frank Herbert's books - except perhaps a slight smell of ordure.

Surely we can separate the Orson Scott Card's opinions from the value of his works? There are several other authors that have opinions that might be viewed as questionable, but we still read their works, do we not?

#33

What does ordure mean, and did you perhaps mean to use the word odour?

Not Ian but ordure means excrement.

Apparently there is a UK Museum of Ordure which takes a somewhat wider remit when assembling its collection.

34

Yep. Given a lot of SF is written by yanks and poms, if had to agree with all of the actual writers, wouldn't be reading very much. (Even if Card is crazypants, still has written some good stuff).

To add to 31 - or even go to football games, for example.

#34 - Doing so would be supporting him. Which would be accepting his views. Besides, I don't believe for an instant a writer can write something which does not - consciously or subconsciously - support or promote their prejudices.

And, let's be fair, have I really missed out by not reading Card?

I should make it clear - it's not that I don't support his views. It's that I oppose them. I don't mind reading something by someone whose views I disagree with. But I won't read something by someone whose views I consider offensive and despicable.

#37, 38
If Card wrote fiction that supported homophobia, or deliberately presented homosexuals in a negative light, then I would agree with the sentiments about not reading Card. The same would go for any other author against certain groups, whom presented this discrimination in their works.

However, from the two books I have read of Card thus far, he has not presented any homosexually-related themes in his books, nor does his lack of discussion of this subject ruin my enjoyment of his books, as varied as it is. Therefore, my opinions of Card as a person with questionable opinions does not yet impact on my opinion of Card as a writer. However, this will change should Card include themes of anti-homosexuality in his works.

#37
Considering that "Ender's Game" has more owners on LT than Dune, that could be possible.

If Card is that reprehensible to you that you do not wish to purchase the book, why not borrow some of his books from your library, and then make a decision on his worth as a writer?

Getting it from a library is a possibility... but I own enough books I want to read and haven't read, so I think it unlikely I'll ever get to the point I'll do that.

Btw, I've read the original novella and thought it was... ordinary. As for the book's popularity - perhaps it's a US thing? I've yet to meet anyone in this country who sings its praises. But then it strikes me it caught a lot of US sf readers at an impressionable age, but wasn't available at that time in the UK.

Oh, and Card is actively homophobic - he has written articles that present homosexuality in a negative light. Among other things. They're not fiction... but he's using the fame which results from his fiction as a platform to spread his reprehensible views. The one wouldn't exist without the other.

#40

I am not from the US, but I did enjoy it. Probably the main reason is that it has nerdy kids saving the world from the bad aliens, which does pluck a few of my own strings, but it's done in a way that is better than most books of the same type.

I know about Card's opinions about homosexuality, have discussed my distase and disagreement with them elsewhere. How can someone be far-thinking enough to write about the ideas in Ender's Game and then be so... backward in his hatred for homosexuality is beyond me. But even knowing this, I still enjoyed his book.

For someone who is apparently so ardently opposed to homosexuality (and who often depicts gay men as weak and servile) a lot of his work contains a fair number of homo-erotic scenes.

Ender's Game does seem to have much wider acclaim in the US (although there are a number of people who like the book in the UK and elsewhere). However a number of authors and books work that way - Atlas Shrugged is the same. As for the reverse, look at Iain Banks. He is a much bigger name this side of the Atlantic.

Most interestingly about a month ago in another place not so far away, I was part of a similar discussion about the relationship of the artist (in the broadest sense) to the works they create and if as a patron one can, or should, seperate or associate the artist with their works. Not surprisingly, the opinions were ranged similarly.

A few times now, I've found out some writer has hateful or distasteful views. If it's before I've read anything, the person goes to the bottom of my TBR pile. I may read them someday but no hurry (and maybe never).

Alternatively, if I know and like an author, they rise to the top of my book pile. I will start with a favorable opinion and subtract for poor writing. I try to be objective in both directions, but I can sense in myself less resistance upwards for my opinion of the books of authors I like, and more resistance upwards in my opinion of books of authors whose views I don't like.

Now, you folks have presented me with an interesting experiment. Some time ago, I read Ender's Game and rather liked it. I don't remember sensing any of the hateful views I read in Cliff's essay link. However, now I'm taking a class and Speaker for the Dead is one of the books we will be reading. I will have the chance to read one book "before" and one "after" I've been made aware of Card's personal views. Thanks. :)

To be fair, I will read Enders Game. I already own it along with Seventh Son and Enchantment (which my wife enjoyed).

I will read a work even if I disagree with the author. That is the case for me with Heinlein and Bova (although to a lesser extent than what I've just read by Card).

It's just that I have to give myself time to let my anger with Card dissapate. Aside from his homophobia (which was the worst of his sins) I also saw his opinions on Terry Schaivo (sp?) and the Hurricane Katrina debacle. What a jerk of a man he is.

Enjoying reading this discussion. Marvelous tone, respectful exchanges throughout. Good on ya, folks...

In #42, in a discussion of homophobia, andyl says, "For someone who is apparently so ardently opposed to homosexuality (and who often depicts gay men as weak and servile) a lot of his work contains a fair number of homo-erotic scenes."

As my friend Bill says, "Methinks he protests too much". I find that people who have what amounts to an irrational fear of homosexuals and their "agenda for destroying the country" are most likely fighting that demon themselves and they feel that demonizing others is a way of dealing with their own problems.

The problem I have with the article written by OSC and linked above, is the bent knee in the direction of religious authoritarianism. This I find more troubling. Authoritarians with demons wind up supporting witch-hunts.

As to popularity in the US, I live in one of the largest school districts in Texas and every ninth grader (sorry, I can't relate that to other education systems, here ninth grade is usually fourteen) in this district is required to purchase and read both Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead, so I'm sure that skews the sales.

Thank God parents aren't forced to pony up for books on the curriculum up here in Soviet Canuckistan. I'd be forced to buy all sorts of Canadian shite I wouldn't want in the house...and I certainly wouldn't like encouraging the impression that these books sell well and are worthy of reprint.

The mind reels at the notion...

Let me say at the outset that I liked all of the original 4 Ender's Game books, and much of Card's earlier work, long before his views on social issues became well-publicized. I have pretty well bounced off of everything he has written from the 90's on, though. The one early book which I expunged from my library immediately after reading was Hart's Hope. I never wanted to reread it to remember why I detested it so much, but a recent discussion of Card's work on rec.arts.sf.written pointed up that much of his work (and especially that book) has child abuse embedded within it, often at an early point in the protagonist's life. This disturbs me far more than homophobia, since that is generally directed against adults who can at least defend themselves, much as I deplore that as well.

Gene,

I was going to point out that Ender's Game is a required read here in Texas in response to post #39, but I figured it was only that way for districts around me. Certain times of the year you can't go into a B&N without tripping over a stack of the book.

34>

Look, Orson Scott Card HATES ME. I can't get beyond that, even if I wanted to. What's your problem with someone not reading his books? Are you that much of a fan that it pains you to think someone might choose not to read them?

It's a tough call and everyone must make their own personal assessment on this.

I can separate Celine's vicious anti-Semitism from his literary brilliance...but could I if I were a person of Jewish descent? Not sure.

I despise Card as a writer AND a person but ENDER'S GAME was readable, a decent YA offering. Would I be of the same mind if I were gay? Again, not sure.

I've never viewed the world through the prism of race, gender, sexual preference...but as a middle aged, middle class, white, hetero male, I've never HAD to.

I welcome further thoughts on this (as long as, at times, we can agree to disagree)...

i don't listen to Wagner for similar reasons, as one side of my family would've been likely lost to the holocaust if my great grandfather hadn't emigrated from the disputed land twxt poland and russia. I know there are Jewish conductors who program Wagner and others who don't. I choose not to listen.

I hear ya, Bob...

#52: I came to the conclusion long ago that many of the great composers were jackasses, so I better get used to ignoring it and just enjoying their music. Wagner is an exception, but probably more because I had an instinctive dislike of his music to begin with, so further knowledge of the man only strengthened that sentiment... (Of course, his brand of amorality trumps the generally low-grade jackassery of other composers.)

I'm listening to Wagner (Die Walküre) right now. I admire the man's works whilst not supporting his views. I have made it my business to research Wagner, his milieu and the society he lived in so that I can put all these things into context. I find I do pretty much the same thing for other creative works.

It helps.

Equally, I understand why Bob wouldn't listen to Wagner; I would not try to change his mind, I certainly wouldn't force Wagner on him, and I would respect the reasons why he made that choice.

It took a long time for me to read and enjoy the works of John Brunner, because as a person he could be obnoxious at times (and was once, directly, to a friend of mine). He was once obnoxious to me on paper: I responded, not in kind, but I hope with a reply which combined integrity with a sting.

As a civil servant and a trade unionist, there are those in this country who hate me - in particular, one newspaper and an Australian media magnate. It's nothing personal, of course: neither knows who I am and neither cares much. I choose not to support their businesses with my trade as far as is possible. Not everyone thinks like me, alas. But I have to do what I can for the good of my own soul. (Oh dear, I seem to be discussing the state of my soul a lot this evening on this forum.)

It's good for you, Robert!

Ian and I have discussed Harlan Ellison in this context as well. Can you separate the man from the work.

Somerset Maugham was a complete shit.

Philip Dick finked on his associates to the FBI and police, hoping (in his paranoid mind) to cater some favor with them.

Elia Kazan and Sterling Hayden named names to HUAC. Decades later, when Kazan received his Lifetime Achievement Oscar, audience reception was mixed. Hollywood liberals have long memories.

The roster goes on and on...

Weighing in: I am 1) gay 2) half-Jewish 3) a father. When deciding what to expose my kid to, the thought process for me was, "What enrichment comes from knowing something about this?" If the answer was "Nothing" I wouldn't care about the artist's purity of soul or anything else. If the answer was "Something" (even if it was just "all my friends are seeing/reading/listening to it"), I tried to learn enough to be able to contextualize the thing in question and present my own opinions together with permission to proceed.

The same process I've gone through for myself in relation to art and artists for my own delectation.

My kid's now 27 and a very good mother. It worked. She read Ender's Game and knew OSC belonged to a religious group "we" didn't approve of or support; his then-known political views were scanty. She decided that it was pretty good, but nothing special; I weighed in that I thought it was very special because it was really creative and very well-executed; we agreed to read Enchantment together and agreed it was extremely creative and well-executed, but we just didn't care about anyone in it.

Yeah yeah, blah blah...we DISCUSSED the stuff she saw and still do; still agree and disagree; and still each derives benefit from reading (library) copies of books by people we don't much agree with (you shoulda been here for the scream-fest that met Ann Coulter's book when we finished reading that!).

Staying open and informed is, to my way of thinking, the wisest possible course. No matter what, your ill-wishers can't sneak up on you that way.

Good post, Richard.

As always.

So gratifying to see a discussion of my simple question take a swerve off into such a conversation! I had read through message #41 before leaving for work today and the thread was a basis for many bits of interesting conversation and moments of pondering.

In general I prefer to appreciate a work first in a relative "vacuum." IF it fails to stand on it's own I may try to appreciate it within the context of its genre/culture/historical relevance.

In general, I find that listening to authors /actors /directors discuss their work OR their views generally diminishes my appreciation of the work and thus I have learned to avoid it. I had a TV series - the first I had actually made a point to watch in several decades - practically ruined by inadvertantly exposing myself to commentary by the actress who played my favorite character - she (the actress, not the character) was so unequivocally inane that I found it difficult to "suspend" my disbelief (something I usually do all-to-well).

Having said that - I think that it is perfectly reasonable for an individual to vote with their dollars (something we do every day whether we realize it and do it consciously, or not). I buy most of my books on the secondary market so this wouldn't often come into play BUT...only you can decide if you are willing to subsidize an author whose viewpoint you "actively oppose" (which I found an important distinction made by post #38 - what if I don't JUST disagree but find your very ideas to be abhorrent and dispicable?!)

PS.
Speaking of subsidizing authors - I don't know how much an author receives directly in royalties when a book is purchased - stats anyone?
PPS.
Speaking of above - Cliff, I just put in an order for a copy of:
http://www.librarything.com/work/3169325
(whether I will actually receive it is another matter - I have been burned by this dealer before) - so, what would you have received IF I had purchased this book during its original release?

Good Lord, Portia, you've just turned up the equivalent of the moldering corpse of Judge Crater.

The first and only edition of SEX consisted of 500 copies, all of which sold out in a little over 4 months. I haven't seen a copy for sale in AGES. I tried to find one for a friend after she lost hers in a house fire and it was impossible.

If you get it, let me know.

SEX was my very first short story collection, published back in 1990. Still very dear to my heart.
What a jolt to discover there's still a copy floating about...

Extremely interesting views, particularly as I had not viewed the discussion from multiple viewpoints (particularly how you would view an homophobic person's works as a homosexual).

#44
What opinion does Bova have that is so disagreeable? I know that Heinlen was extremely pro-military, but have not heard Bova's opinions on the subject.

Oh, Bova's okay. I haven't really read much about his views except for those I've seen come through his work. The libertarian stuff mostly. He's sort of a more agreeable Heinlein.

In Jupiter and his other 'Grand Tour' books he posits a religious world government that seems a lot more benign than such a thing would actually be. I don't think he believes such a government would be a good thing though. I would like to read his views on that.

Compared to some of the stupid statements I've read from Card, Bova's nothing. Just needed a simple example.

I've read nothing by Heinlein, but I vaguely remember reading some review of his oeuvre that made him sound truly repellent, quite racist for one thing--in the books, I mean. Issue was taken with some D. W. Griffithesque black character who cannibalises white people. Can't judge on this, just reporting.

I read "Ender's game" a few weeks ago, a OSC first for me, and frankly, last. It wasn't horrible, I'm just being pragmatic and deciding that if this is his best, ok, I got acquainted, I read another book widely held to be a sf classic, and I'm not interested in reading his other (less-than-best) stuff.

One detail surprised and bugged me from the start. "Buggers"? Okay, the book was written in the seventies, by an American, but is the usage really so limited to the UK that innocent Yank schoolchildren are safely exposed to a text riddled with the equivalent of "faggot"? I read that OSC came up with the idea for the book when he was sixteen, did he at that age, truly innocently, also come up with "buggers", ignorant of the slur? Why didn't some editor push to change it? It's just weird.

Heinlein was no paragon, but I don't think he as bad as that review painted him. He may be a product of his time, but he doesn't dress up in a bedsheet.

Buggers... I've seen a 1970s US television advert for an electronic tag for kids called "Little Bugger", so it doesn't surprise me that "bugger" is mostly unknown on the other side of the Atlantic. The same is true of "bollocks".

It strikes me that we're having this discussion during "Banned Books Week" (in the USA).

Timely, doncha think?

Re: buggers, I just find the coincidence with OSC's views interesting. Is the British public generally aware of the pejorative use of "faggot"?

As for being a product of one's times, everyone is, and yet some are decent, some are not. It's no excuse.

Ian,

The Heinlein book you're thinking of is Farnham's Freehold. I haven't read the book yet myself, so I can't say anything on that issue. But I have heard arguments for both sides of that book. I guess you'd have to figure out what Heinlein's intentions were by reading the book and judging the character in context. I will... eventually.

Heinlein had some political views I strongly disagree with, but I don't believe he was a racist. (Well.... The Sixth Column maybe...)

As for 'buggers'... I don't know. I think the same thing every time a Brit author makes mention of 'fags'.

Weighing in again: "Bugger" in the US is likely seen as a misspelling of childrens' favorite bodily-fluid epithet, "booger" and so passed under the censorious radar of the self-appointed guardians of morality and the common good.

What it means in the UK, well, let's just say that OSC isn't a stupid man, and so chose his word carefully...and well, from all indications, since his book goes largely unchallenged in most schools.

>59 PortiaLong: Portia, royalties in the US and Canada depend on the binding of the book purchased. Hardcover books GENERALLY started at 10% of jacket price for books sold at 49% or less of price, then escalate to 12.5% of jacket price at a certain (high, if the publisher's negotiator is successful, low if the author's negotiator is successful) sales figure, then max out at 15% at as high a sales figure as the publisher can manage to wangle. All of these numbers carry within them a fudge factor, allowing publishers to shave off a certain negotiated percentage of what they owe the author for returned books and extraordinary items. And of course, royalties go down on certain classes of sales (eg, those with discounts above 50%), and vanish entirely on remaindered books. No means has ever been found to collect and distribute royalties on secondary-market sales, eg used books, though believe me author's reps are thinking thinking thinking.

Side note: Anyone ever notice that used bookstores, even big 'uns like Half Price Books with many stores, do not use the simple and easy-to-use barcodes that exist on all books sold after 1990 or so to track inventory or sales? Wanna take a guess as to why, given the above screed?

Trade paperbacks start at 8% of cover price and escalate to whatever the author's negotiator can get, generally never more than 10%.

Mass market paperbacks start at 5% or 6% of cover price and don't escalate unless the sales top out in the stratosphere.

The differences were built in to account for the profit margins that once existed on the different classes of binding. High class, high profit hardcovers were once more profitable to produce than they are today.

~here endeth the lesson~

I got it! Found the references to Heinlein I'd read--they are in Thomas Disch's The dreams our stuff is made of, scattered in a number of chapters, Republicans on Mars... etc. and in The Third World and other alien nations.

Too long to quote all, here's just one little bit:

"Farnham's Freehold appeared in the mid-'60s at the height of the civil rights movement and must be considered a response to those events. Heinlein in earlier books had scrupled to appear tolerant in matters of race. The astronaut hero of one of his young adult SF novels turned out to be, quite en passant, a black. Even in Farnham's Freehold, the hero upbraids his son for derogatory remarks about "niggers". For all that, Heinlein is clearly choosing sides in this novel. He is endorsing D. W. Griffith and spurning Martin Luther King, and such is the energy released by this surrender to Id forces and maximal political incorrectness that the book is one of Heinlein's zestiest."

Disch is of the opinion that OSC used "buggers" to be deliberately offensive:

"Heinlein called them Bugs; Card, archly, calls them Buggers, to make them doubly objectionable."

#66 Yes, most Brits know "faggot", chiefly from US films and television shows. US slang is better understood in the UK than UK slang is understood in the US. Actually, not just slang - I've used the words "fortnight" and "bin" and received blank looks from Americans...

Also "product of his time" - I meant his views are not the same as ours, not that his views were necessarily so much more offensive than ours. I've not read Farnham's Freehold, although I have heard it's offensive. But then, much of Heinlein's other stuff isn't. I'm not a big fan of his books and stories, but I wouldn't condemn him for an attitude displayed in a novel. Unlike Card, who has shown quite clearly that he holds offensive views himself.

#69. Ha. Disch. Well, he could be notoriously bitchy. When Algis Budrys died, Disch wrote, "Ding! Dong! The Witch is dead!".

Doesn't The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of also include an alaysis of Starship Troopers as gay porn?

If Card didn't realise he was being offensive with his "buggers", surely his UK publishers must have discussed this? I'm thinking of the practice of "Britishifying" (or "Americanising") texts, such as I encountered not a few times (some of my Salinger novels are a British seventies vintage, and have "gaol" for jail and Brit spelling etc.) And I think the Harry Potters (and likely other books for the youth?) are converted to American usage too--out with S(p)ellotape, jam for marmalade etc. for the US market.

Especially since "Ender's game" is, if not strictly or intentionally YA, clearly used as a YA text.

Cliff and Lola,

I find myself in the uncomfy position of defending an author who has been shown to be a dickhead and a book that I haven't yet read.

But on the 'bugger' issue, I have to say that it is highly unlikely that Card used that word as any sort of double-entendre.

The book was written in 1985 based on an earlier novella (1977), well before the internets and easy access to the minutia of the rest of the world.. I doubt that Card knew much British slang when he was naming his aliens.

I do think Card is a jerk of a person, but I'm gonna chalk that one up to coincidence.

Converting even US spellings to British (and I have rarely seen gaol used by British writers unless they are being deliberately archaic; I have seen it used by Americans far more) spellings is increasingly rare.

In the case of Card's buggers I'm not sure what the UK publishers could have done? However what alternative is there - it is certain that Card wanted to riff off the Starship Troopers 'bugs'. Ender's Game wasn't published as a YA book at the time (either in the UK or the US), and it isn't particularly used as a school text in the UK.

There are other books which have unfortunate connotations - Servants Of The Wankh for example resulted in quite a bit of laughter at my school (and I am sure many others). Apparently Jack Vance was completely oblivious to the way the English use the word wank.

Oh, I'm not attacking Heinlein (whom I haven't read), just reporting what I heard. I found Disch's book very interesting, by the way, I do recommend it--even for those like me who hadn't read more than a fraction of authors discussed! He did a marvellous job of explaining the cultural context of sf, the trends and influences. His tone is occasionally sharp, but I never felt he was being bitchy, the sharpness is cleverness, rather.

I don't think I agree with his categorical dismissal of Mary Shelley in favour of Poe as the "inventor" of sf (assuming there is such one person), but he's engaging throughout.

Back to Heinlein, Disch gives excerpts from "Farnham's Freehold" and talks more about the book before that concluding passage I quoted--people would probably want to pursue the book and see for themselves. I've been meaning to read Heinlein's masterpiece--"The moon is a harsh mistress"?--going by my 100 sf classics list, and I should probably read that first because if Freehold turns out to be so repellent, I may not get to any more Heinlein.

#74 Card's a writer, if someone told him "you know what, that name you chose for the disgusting enemy race in your book means something/someone here", surely he could've come up with an alternative.

Or, he could've gone "Oh COOL!", which seems to have been the case (this assuming his utter initial cluelessness in the first place).

Lola,

If nothing else you've shown me that The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of is probably a pretty darn interesting book. I'm gonna have to look for that one.

I don't think you'll be sorry! And do report how you found it.

The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of is already on my wants list.

Oh, and for even more British English amusement, there's always the film "Free Willy". My, how we laughed...

Free Willy wasn't only funny to Brits. That's a 'What were they thinking?' moment for sure.

I remember the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky jokes.

"Free willy" indeed...

I'm not sure why this hasn't been mentioned, but in both Starship Troopers and Enders Game the term "bugs" and "buggers" are used on ALIENS THAT ARE INSECTLIKE that the earth is engaged in a war with, so I think the reasons for the use of those terms is self evident.
I have never heard either term used as an insult with racial connotations. I'm not a fan of OSC's politics, and take Heinlein's politics with more than a grain of salt, but I'd inclined to think anyone trying to connect the dots on this one is engaging in willful mischaracterization.

What's more, I can't imagine a novel like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress making any true racist happy today, and certainly not at the time of it's original publication.

The racism was referred to in regard to "Farnham's Freehold", not those other titles.

"Buggers" is a homophobic slur. It doesn't matter how Card originally used it, I imagine he must have heard about it after publication, and in all this time since then. Anyone know of comments from him about it, incidentally?

I've never heard that term used in the states, ever.

The question isn't so much whether it's used, but whether it's understood. People don't say "trousers" very much in the US, but they generally know what the word means. And even if one decides that Card used it "innocently" (Disch, who was also American, thinks otherwise, for one), the question remains what Card thought about its perception elsewhere.

Anybody know his web site? Email address? Why not just put Mr. Card on the spot by ASKING him? Go to the source, I say.

Hi, Arthur, good to have you back.

Missed you, ya devil...

If this is the quote:

"Heinlein called them Bugs; Card, archly, calls them Buggers, to make them doubly objectionable."

Is Disch referring to the term being used as a racial pejorative t or a homosexual pejorative? Now I'm confused. I don't believe Heinlein uses the term"bug" in Farnham's Freehold. I'm not defending that book,BTW, I'm just trying to get clear the connection with the use of the terms "bug" or "bugger".

"The question isn't so much whether it's used, but whether it's understood."

I told you, I've never ever heard the term used as a pejorative for homosexuals. If he didn't either,how could it be understood?

As already mentioned above, the term "faggot" is very offensive pejorative in the States. If someone asks for a cigarette in Great Britain and calls for a "fag", should they understand too?

I for one have never heard of "bugger" being used in that manner. (Though I am familiar with "bugger off" which certainly doesn't make the slur obvious.)

Of course, if people would actually read Card, they'd know that starting with the "Bean" books (a kind of parallel series to the original Ender quartet) the "buggers" are almost exclusively referred to by the more technical name "Formics".

(Though I suppose someone will tell me "Formics" is somehow a gay-bashing term as well.)

Arthur, the buggers discussion was about Card; the racism thing refers to Heinlein's "Farnham's Freehold". (I'll never forget that title now, will I? :))

The two are unrelated, except in the general way of bigoted assholery.

Well I'm only repeating the quote you have from Disch where he says "Heinlein called them bugs"...

If he doesn't use that term in Farnahm's Freehold, what's the context of him and perhaps you pointing that out?

If someone asks for a cigarette in Great Britain and calls for a "fag", should they understand too?

Well, that's what we were talking about above, what and whether people understand. Let's consider this from the opposite view--say Card was British and called his insects "faggots" (because, because... they look like twigs and sticks!) Now suppose next that "Ender's game" has "faggots" instead of "buggers" in every place. And then suppose it hits the US market.

I'm just guessing that maybe it wouldn't be on high school curricula in Texas today.

what's the context of him and perhaps you pointing that out?

Well, you'd need to go look from the first post I made today here--the discussion veered this and that way.

ETA: if it helps to clarify--there are two strands to the discussion, one about Card, the other about Heinlein.

Oh AND--a belated nod to the OT--Portia, I too recommend reading the first "Dune"! The sandworms are great!

A bugger practises buggery, although "bugger" is used most often as a generic swearword - "bugger me, some twonk has left twenty nicker on this table," for example; or "I'll be buggered if I'm getting up at sparrowfart tomorrow morning." Everyone (in the UK) knows that buggery is sodomy, but no one uses it as a homophobic insult. The term is actually derived from the French for Bulgar, which was applied to Bogomil clerics from Bulgaria to settled in France who escape religious persecution. They practiced sodomy. The term has nothing to do with racism. Well, except for the Bulgarian connection...

I suspect Card simply expanded "bug" to "bugger", a reference to the aliens' insect nature. I also suspect Disch of playing silly word-games to make a point. Given that he was himself gay, I don't think it out-of-character of him to "find" more evidence to accuse Card of homophobia. He only had to wait, and Card wuld have shouted it from the rooftops...

In the UK, you can also "bum a fag"; also known as "crash the ash". It means "to beg a cigarette". "Fanny" also means something different over here, something much ruder.

Oh, and "faggot" meaning a bundle of wood is old-fashioned and rarely used. I seem to recall that one of the alien races in Colin Greenland's Take Back Plenty is described as a bundle of twigs, but I don't think the word "faggot" is ever used.

Well then,it's time for me to learn something. I will put this to people from the UK:

is the term "bugger" currently used NOT as a slang for sodomy, but as a general pejorative for homosexuals?
As in "he's a bugger"
Can I get a confirmation on this?

It's used as a general term of (friendly) abuse, and I've never heard it used as an insult against homosexuals.

I don't know. I think most of us agree that regardless of what was found later, at the time he was writing Ender's Game Orson Scott 'I'm a jerk' Card probably wasn't aware that 'buggers' was a slur elsewhere.

I agree he probably heard something about it after publication. But I would not want him to then go and censor future editions.

Thanks for the lesson in Brit-speak, Ian. What a funky language...

And if anyone in this group ever tells me to "formic" myself, I'll know what you're talking about and, needless to say, you're dead.

#69: Essentially, Disch seems to have missed the point of Farnham's Freehold. At its core, the book simply reverses the situation in place in the United States at the time - instead of whites favored and blacks subject to legal discrimination, the reverse is true in the book. Heinlein takes things a step further too, effectively whites are legally enslaved by blacks, and the situation is regarded by those living in the society as completely normal, if I remember correctly, it is supported not only by law, but by religious interpretation.

To say Heinlein is siding with D.W. Griffith is simply missing the point of the book - which seems to me to be that anyone who is in a position of superiority will become monstrous to those they are placed above. The books is clumsy and ham-handed, but it seems to me to be meant as a lesson for those who would say that whites were inherently superior - whites in the book turn out to be not so inherently superior. More or less, it seems to me that Heinlein is trying to say to white supremacists "well, how would you like it if you were at the bottom of the heap; is it any wonder that black people today don't like it either?".

Disch wrote some good stuff, but he was a difficult person, and depressed and apparently quite angry for most of his life. He didn't like lots of people and seems to have had a tendency to ascribe the worst motives to those he disliked, even if those bad motives were not apparent to anyone but him.

They practiced sodomy.

A vile slander!!! Show me a cleric who doesn't bugger some, and I'll show you a capon!

I don't think Disch was the only person to look askance at Card's "buggers" and it certainly raises questions today, when we all know everything the Internet knows.

And, really, I have to remark that a writer who hadn't read widely enough to encounter a bugger or two by the time of his adulthood if not earlier, is a writer I'll look down upon.

Buggins. Buggens. Bugwots. Buggz. Bugses. Buggolians. The options SWARM.

#99

You'd have to read all of Disch's critique. He didn't miss the "reversal", he analyses it explicitly, but as I said, I only quoted (partially) a bit from his conclusion.

There's no question that there are quite a number of SF books that reflect a real racial panic, written at the time of the Civil Rights movement in the US, that are VERY uncomfortable, often shockingly so, to read today...

I think the oppressed becoming an oppressor is a valid point.

I was astonished when I read Edward Jones' A KNOWN WORLD and discovered that freed blacks in the States sometimes owned (and badly abused) slaves.

Blew me mind, it did...

So, the word I'm getting here is that NO, "bugger" is not a term for homosexual in the UK.

The posts are coming fast and furious now.

Arthur, to straighten it all out:

We were discussing Heinlein and Farnham's Freehold and whether the author was being racist or misunderstood.

Then 'bugger' came up in Ender's Game. Disch accused Card of not only using the term 'bugger' as a slur, but he also accused him of swiping the term from the 'bugs' in Starship Troopers.

Seems to me that if Card stole 'bugs' from Starship Troopers (which he probably did) and turned it into 'buggers' then we can see that he wasn't looking to use an offensive slur from a foreign country as well. Doesn't accepting one of those sort of preclude the other?

Oh, one more thing, StormRaven. The blacks in the book are cannibals, eating their slaves. That's not exactly the sort of thing to make you think "well, there you go, they're just people like everyone else".

"bugger" is not a term for homosexual in the UK.

Don't ask Ian, ask a homosexual.

#106 - Lola,

I agree with StormRaven, but your post was sooooooooo funny!

Knowing Card's desire for commercial success, I can't imagine him using the term "bugger" in the pejorative sense...it might cost the bastard sales, something he couldn't countenance.

I'm guessing it was an homage/ripoff of Heinlein and nothing more.

Jesus, now I've become an apologist for an author I fucking loathe...

#101: Well, if he saw the reversal, and came up with the idea that Heinlein was siding with bigotry and Griffith with Farnham's Freehold, then he wasn't just misinformed, he was essentially lying so that he could attack someone he apparently personally didn't like.

The "satire" in Farnham's Freehold is ham-handed and over the top - probably so that those who it was intended to be aimed at (random white supremacists) wouldn't miss the point. But to conclude that Heinlein was espousing white supremacy is simply making crap up.

First google result:

bug·ger 1 (bgr, bg-)

n.


1. Vulgar Slang A sodomite.

2. Slang A contemptible or disreputable person.

3. Slang A fellow; a chap: "He's a silly little bugger, then" John le Carré.

v. bug·gered, bug·ger·ing, bug·gers Vulgar Slang


v.intr.


To practice sodomy.


v.tr.


1. To practice sodomy with.

2. To damn.

"but he also accused him of swiping the term from the 'bugs' in Starship Troopers."

That part is certainly true. And insect enemies seem to have become a staple of Mil SF.

"Doesn't accepting one of those sort of preclude the other?"
Certainly to my mind. That's why this all feels like willful mischaracterization. I can think either of these guys are assholes, but that doesn't mean I can accuse them of everything and anything that I can think of. That's a technique I usually associate with those on the right, I refuse to adopt it myself.

OSC has managed to hang himself without any mischaracterization from Disch or anyone else.

then he wasn't just misinformed, he was essentially lying so that he could attack someone he apparently personally didn't like.


Or, maybe he was right, and he wasn't "lying", and maybe you are going all out defending someone you personally like.

I'd like a black perspective on "Farnham's Freehold", for my part.

Re the Google defintion:

Well, we had people from UK say, "no, they've never heard it used that way" What do you say to that?

Well, Arthur, I've never been called a nigger. I wonder why that is? Ummmm... because I'm white? Could be, could be.

Cliff,

I feel for you man. I was thinking the same thing. (Though I didn't loathe him until post #25)

Remember the good old days when we were dog-piling on those lousy-ass Dune sequels?

The conversation is more interesting now, I admit.

#106: Sure, they became cannibals, but I ascribe that to the over-the-top nature of the narrative. The point was being hammered home with all the subtlety of a pile driver, and I think that was because the intended audience was mostly deaf to the argument. Subtlety would have been lost.

Now, I'm not saying the Farham's Freehold was a good book. It, along with Sixth Column (also titled The Day After Tomorrow) are probably Heinleien's weakest offerings. But saying "These books are evidence that Heinlein was writing apologetics for white supremacists" (especially when taken in context with his many other books) is simply coming up with a conclusion without really referencing the works themselves.

#107 Well, you could... but if it was commonly used as such in the UK it wouldn't matter who you asked. I said it wasn't common. But then neither is "ginger", WWII-era slang for a homosexual.

Or, maybe he was right, and he wasn't "lying", and maybe you are going all out defending someone you personally like."

Wow. You're really starting to draw lines in the sand now. Have fun. I'm gone from this one.

#113: I doubt it. Disch had a long history of attacking people left and right on the flimsiest pretexts. If Ellison didn't exist, then Disch would probably jave been dubbed the angry man of science fiction.

If you see the reversal, and still think the book is supporting racism, then basically, you are lying. There really is no other conclusion one can reach.

JSeger & I proudly announce the formation of the "I Hate Orson Scott Card Fan Club".

Ian, this may cut into the time I can devote to the "I Hate Kevin J. Anderson and Timothy Zahn to the Point of Castrating Them to Prevent Further Damage to World Literature Fan Club"...

#117

StormRaven, you may be interested in looking up Disch's book and getting a grasp on his argument like that, instead of speculating on the basis of my quote.

Cliff,

Knowing Card's desire for commercial success, I can't imagine him using the term "bugger" in the pejorative sense...it might cost the bastard sales, something he couldn't countenance.

I'm ready to buy that he was ignorant, but that's what I'm speculating about--how much he knew, how much he intended, and was there ever any feedback. For instance, I read a bit about his reponse to criticism that his child characters are unconvincingly "children" etc.

Bottom line is, ignorant or deliberately offensive, neither is particularly flattering for a bestselling writer.

There's NOTHING flattering about Card.

My point is that if he thought for a moment that "bugger" would get him in trouble with the press and possibly cost him sales, it would've been Formic from the beginning...

I can't imagine it would have cost him sales either way, more curious about the perception.

But interesting that about the transition to "Formics". Something must have trickled down...

Someone, way back upthread mentioned Formics. Isn't this a positive term for the Irish?

Just popping in to add an endorsement for the Disch book even though I don't think I agreed with any of his arguments (although it's been a while since I read it so I can't be sure). Still, they are stimulating essays. It seems his beef with Le Guin showed up somewhere in them (if I remember correctly). And I remember the Poe-Shelly essay; I didn't buy the argument either but it was interesting to read. There was another essay, interesting at the time, about the bald woman in SF . . .

Love your observations, Lola, so like a picador at a bullfight:-) I'm going to have to send you a box of SF novels just to see what you have to say about them!

#125 Oh ho, Gene, gotcha!

There's no such thing as a positive term for the Irish.

Thought you'd catch me out on that one, eh?

More langauge lessons:

In the English midlands, a "faggot" is also a round meatball made mainly of offal;

In the North-East of England, "buggermar" is a term of friendly and affectionate abuse. (No, that's not irony. I didn't believe it myself until I heard it used in exactly that context. There was no gay subtext to it at all.) (Mind you, that was thirty years ago...);

And just to pick up Ian's contribution: "ginger" as a term for homosexuals is rhyming slang: "ginger beer" = "queer".

Another Brit view on the whole "buggers" thing.

I've never heard (or heard of) 'buggers' being used as a homosexual slur. We have far too many other words to use a such without having to resort to reclaiming the original meaning of a phrase that has long since lost that meaning in common use (similarly, sod).

Common use forms of bugger in the UK:

1. Bugger! - an exclaimation of annoyance. Say, you've missed your bus and you're quite upset by that; you may shout 'Bugger!' Now, you could use the eff word and mean much the same, but that would be uncouth.

2. Bugger off! - a handy phrase for when someone is annoying you and you wish for them to go away.

3. You cheeky bugger! - typically used by grandparents when the grandkids are playing up. Or was it just mine?

Broadly speaking, it's a word that can replace the eff one (or variations thereof) in most phrases, and allow you to speak them without causing offence (mostly; you might get unlucky and say it in earshot of a highly conservative person. But they're dying out these days).

In short, scant thought is given to any homosexual connotations. In any case, heterosexuals are perfectly capable of practicing buggery too.

On another note: regarding Disch, I read The Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of earlier this year. And there are two things to be said about it.

One; it's well worth reading.

Two; pretty much anything Disch says in it should *not* be taken as gospel truth, or a representative view of the views held by the field at large. He's not bitchy in the book so much (or not excessively so, unlike in his LiveJournal), but a number of the arguments he advances rely on accepting that the position he starts from is true (which I don't believe is always the case), and he could stand accused of sophistry in some parts. To take the examples cited, his views on Heinlein and Card are his and his alone, and people should look to the texts in question and form their own opinions rather than taking what Disch says about them as fact (personally speaking, I'm no fan of Card but don't agree with Disch's comment (quoted upthread), and although I own Farnham's Freehold, I've yet to read it so can't comment on that).

#130

Disch's book is very clearly a book of opinion--definite, sharp, well-argumented opinion. I should hope no one is inclined to take anyone's opinions as "gospel truths" (including Jesus').

#129

Are you a homosexual? Are you well-read? "Bugger" isn't a recent word, it was used extensively in English for centuries, precisely as a pejorative for homosexual. I've encountered it as such in tons of British lit, pre and post WWII. If it's losing this primary meaning, that's great, but then, it is peculiar that every dictionary I looked at gives some version of "a pejorative name for a homosexual" as the primary definition. What's your explanation?

The Americans tell me it can't be American usage, and that Card hadn't the faintest clue about this; you insist it can't be viewed as a pejorative because you've never heard it used so.

Well... that's not good enough.

So how 'bout them Dune books, huh? Thats some goooood readin'. :)

The first one. I think I read about four, but by the time Paul

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!!!













bcm a gint wrm










END OF SPOILER!




they really degenerated.

Damn, I hate LT's restrictions on HTML.

>131 LolaWalser:

Are you actually reading any of these comments? Not just from me, but from several of us Brits. We're all saying the same thing: that it is highly unlikely that anyone in the UK would construe "bugger" as a gay slur.

Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean asking the question. Especially not when you suggest that unless I'm gay I'm not entitled to have a view, and that I'm not well read (if you took even the slightest of glances at my profile you wouldn't need to ask that).

As for the dictionary definition issue: it wouldn't be the first (or last) time that a dictionary lagged far behind common usage. It also depends which dictionary you use; my OED gives "a heretic" as the primary definition.

Could you care to name any of these "tons" of British books you've seen it in? I'm wondering if you've having a similar problem with those that you're having with the Card - that you're interpreting its use in a way the author may not necessarily intend.

#135

Now, now, no need to get your knickers in a twist, you British person, you. I asked if you were homosexual to check for the range of responses, not suggesting anything about you. I'm the sort who doesn't take for granted straights' views on what's homophobic, whites' views on what's racist, or men's views on what's misogynistic. Get it?

Now, the case with your OED is interesting, that's the first dictionary today that, as you say, gives "heretic" as the primary definition of "bugger". Are the definitions given in a chronological order, or beginning with etymology?

Could you care to name any of these "tons" of British books you've seen it in?

Not all (too many), but those that come to mind first: Bloomsbury biographies, correspondence, conversations, diaries by Spender, Symons, Waugh, Norman Douglas... all these confirm the spread and usage of the word.

Indeed, I find it funny it's being contested at all. But maybe we don't read the same books...

I told a friend on another forum about this little discussion we're having, and he sent me this quote:

'Please hold the letters about the use of “buggery.” It’s a fine English word, although unfairly attributing a nasty practice to Bulgarians. In a more cosmopolitan time, before perversions transmogrified into social causes, it was understood that some people did queer ** things in private. The story is told of Winston Churchill encountering on a social occasion a member of parliament who had been arrested for soliciting in a public loo. Churchill said, “Oh, so you’re the chap giving buggery a bad name, are you?”'

I think I'll make a thread for such quotes, in the interest of educating the masses about fine, fine English words, and their many fine, fine meaning s and nuances.

See ya lata, alligatas!

First of all -
>68 richardderus: Thank you for such a detailed answer to my question about royalties! I was trying to figure out how much money I actually gave to OSC when I bought the third book in his "Women of Genesis" series, Rachel and Leah.

Second of all -
My, my..how far afield this discussion has travelled - lovely!

My two cents - I am aware of the use of the term "bugger" = sodomy (and I am neither British nor particularly an avid reader of British lit) so it must be not particularly esoteric knowledge.

However, I really, really doubt OSC meant anything by his use of this word other than "bug-like-aliens-we-are-fighting -in-an-interplanetary-war" similar to Heinlein's use of "bugs" in Starship Troopers - but I wouldn't consider this a rip-off/homage as this is a uber-common theme and, aside from their insectile qualities, the similarity is very superficial. The use of the word "Formics" in the later parallel works may reflect the ...ummm...re-education of OSC but I think is more likely to be an attempt to show how the post-Bugger-War society in the book is de-emotionalizing the enemy by using a more formal and less-semantically-loaded word.

In re: Heinlein's racism - I have read this many times in many forums/articles and am just not buying that he was promoting any type of pro-white agenda in his novels. Farnham's Freehold was certainly not my favorite RAH work but reading any more into it than "hey-look! reverse the power differential and YOU wouldn't like it either" seems to be reaching. Given the treatment of race in his other works - non-white hero-protagonists, happy healthy (by the culture of the book) interracial relationships, etc. - I would say REALLY reaching.

BUT, we all bring our own paranoias and biases to what we read- so, judge for yourselves.

PS. Edited to add - if anyone really cares what OSC thought he meant by the use of the word "buggers" please feel free to inquire:
http://hatrack.com/contact.shtml

in re the dreams our stuff are made of .. i'd suggest a used or library copy first; i found it a very irritating book and not esp. perceptive. Left my copy at a "bookcrossing" drop off a while ago.

but in re "bugger" - my associations w/ it would be much more along the lines of telling someone to "screw off" - i think the homosexual connotation would've more literal during, say, the Oscar Wilde trial, 100+ yrs ago. Language and slang changes.

I dislike Heinlein for his vast sense of self-importance as he clearly conflates his identity w/ that of his heroic, Ayn Randian protagonists, and it's convenient(for me) that i've never liked his books. On the other hand I enjoyed several of the early OSC books a lot way back when..and am kind of glad i wasn't aware of what a shite he was/is. I really hadn't become aware of his various and sundry positions until he made some pronouncements in re the US' role in Iraq. Here, for instance, he permits himself to speak for the "whole soldiering class"...
http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2007-08-26.shtml
i don't think so. He's down w/ the Program for the New American Century (ideologically..not literally); the folks who've managed to bring about the decline and fall of just about everything and certainly seem to be succeeding in their scheme to turn the US into the world's deadliest 3rd world country (umm..rhetorical overkill).

OT (but then, what in the last fifty posts hasn't been), but I was thinking we could start a thread for recommending sci-fi books for Lola (and anyone else who cares). Would there be any interest in that?

Lord knows we love debating the pros and cons of any and all sci-fi classics.

As far as the term "Buggers" go with OSC, I always just thought of them as buglike. Sort of like the creatures in Starship Troopers. Plus that whole hive-mind thing. Maybe it was this sort of innocuous meaning he was counting on as a fallback defense, or is that too paranoid?

Having looked at various usages of the work "bugger", on line, I'd say that the closest word I see that it comes to is "punk" which originally meant a catamite. And that term as it used in slang in the prisons of America has pretty much the same meaning as it's original use. It is not used to describe someone who is homosexual, but to describe someone who will be of service to people in that capacity, most likely by force. But that doesn't stop ordinary people from referring to a juvenile delinquent as a "young punk".

So if it's about drawing lines in the sand about the insensitive uses of words, there's a word you really have your work cut out with. You could start with an entire movement in popular music in which I don't think that's how it was meant. In short, I do think intent counts for something, and in any cultural context, the current use of a word is the meaning of the word for all practical purposes.

And if the word bugger was changed for formic, I think the reason would be for it's widely known, widely used vulgar verbal meaning, for the same reason someone might pull "screw" or "shag", not because it has in some part of it's history been used as a noun to describe homosexuals. As I recall, the movie title "The Spy Who Shagged Me" was not well received in the UK.

When a guy says "the government screwed me" he's not saying he's a homosexual. I think this would be how "bugger" is commonly used.

"Buggins. Buggens. Bugwots. Buggz. Bugses. Buggolians. The options SWARM."

"Buggins" is an insect spray. "Buggens" appears to be a surname."Buggz" seems to be a broadly used hip hop nick name. "Bugses" might be programming slang. The other terms I have not found. Are you implying that the mere use of the term "bug" as a word root is inherently deliberately defamatory, or are you admitting here that you've been pulling our collective legs all along??

>140 jseger9000: jseger, that sounded like a good idea to me so I started it here and welcome all who use it.

50

I don't think anyone has stated you HAVE to read his books if you don't want to. I don't remember any homophobia in Ender's Game, but it is, as always (except in school), your choice whether to read it or not. My disagreements with his views have not kept me from enjoying some of his books. But his viewpoints don't constitute a personal attack on me (at least I don't think so, haven't read all his stuff) so I don't know how I'd feel in that case.

Now, now, no need to get your knickers in a twist, you British person, you. I asked if you were homosexual to check for the range of responses, not suggesting anything about you. I'm the sort who doesn't take for granted straights' views on what's homophobic, whites' views on what's racist, or men's views on what's misogynistic. Get it?

But you'll take Disch's views about Card?

Wow, you go out for a night and everyone turns talkative.

Like the other Britons I will attest to the word bugger not being used in an homophobic way but most of us know the sodomy meaning*. Literal meaning and usage strays quite considerably. I have a number of gay friends and not one of them has ever mentioned bugger being offensive and at least some of them use the word themselves (maybe all I don't track these things). I have certainly heard Stephen Fry exclaim bugger multiple times on TV when he is being himself rather than acting in a drama.

* Sometimes you will hear "bugger me backwards with a barge-pole" to express surprise. At one time it was almost a trend to come up with more elaborate objects to be buggered with. I think that "bugger me backwards with a blunt market vegetable" was the only line the BBC objected to in Black Adder. They left plenty of unadorned buggers in the scripts.

The one I heard a British friend use once, was in telling a sailor story in which it someone says about something that stunned him- "you could have buggered me through two oil skins".

Brian Herbert and Kevin J Anderson have certainly buggered up the Dune universe.

Ah, see, now there's a entirely different usage of the word: "to bugger up". Question is, will Lola take a Brit's word on British usage of an English word?

I've been sitting here giggling at the various Brit turns of phrase people are quoting. The bargepole set me off initially and then the "through two oilskins" triggered a laughing/coughing fit (I've got a cold/flu thing).

Thanks for this. Bugger me, but it was funny...

>146 andyl: andyl, "bugger me backwards with a barge-pole"

ROFL

That's hilarious!

In #148 iansales asked, "will Lola take a Brit's word on British usage of an English word?"

Do the Brits speak English?

"Pfff, English! Who needs that? I'm never going to England." - Homer Simpson

True story. My sister spent a couple of years working in Oregon. An American once asked her how long it took her to learn English. "I'm from England," my sister said. "Yes, I know," replied the American. "But how long did it take you to learn English?"

You ever wonder what American schools look like?

I picture this born again Christian teacher pointing at a model of a flat Earth, going "Of course, there are some who insist it's round but GOD tells us..."

Well, I just thought maybe the Brits spoke British.

British = the proper way to speak English

Hope that clears it up.

Watch your back, Ian. I sense a barge pole in your immediate future...

#154 - "Today we will be learning about the origins of life. Please turn to Genesis, 1:1"

I now live in Texas, but went to school in California, thank goodness.

Oh, stop. British = the British way to speak English.

I went to public schools in Texas. I learned (!) about evolution and not creationism because my teachers were sensible people, trained to teach what science tells us, not some made-up story by and about a great big narcissistic bully who lives in the sky. That was completely unacceptable to our schools and the parents who showed up to guide the running of them.

Want to point fingers? Point directly at each of us over 30. This nightmare we see before us today is the result of all of us over a certain age not resisting the takeover of our eeducational system by the loudest, craziest minority.

Speaking only of and for the US-based audience in this last.

Er, joke.

Got it...the joke back was the first sentence.

The rest, not a joke and not directed at you or the other UKers around the place.

Dear me, whoda thunk I'd be lecturing on buggery to a bunch of Englishmen? :)

First, there is no confusion whatsoever about what the word means--and if you don't trust me, you're welcome to look it up in any number of dictionaries. HoldenCarver claimed that his OED gave "heretic" as the (first) definition; I asked him to clarify this, knowing that the OED is a historical dictionary, but he didn't, so I hopped up to the reference shelves during lunch break and looked it up myself. In several dictionaries. Here's a sample:

OED (1995 reprint):

+1. A heretic... Obs. exc. Hist.

What do the italicised abbreviations mean, class (and that little cross sign before the "1.")? Right you are--that THAT meaning is obsolete. Do we all know what's "obsolete", or do we need to look up that too? 'Course not! On we go, below this line there's

2. One who commits buggery; a sodomite. In decent use only as a legal term.

b. In low language a coarse term of abuse or insult; often, however, in English dialogue and in U.S. simply-'chap', 'customer', 'fellow'.

-------------------------------


These meanings are not obsolete. They are what the word means today. Speaking of legal terms, Wikipedia tells me that buggeryis also a specific criminal offence under the English common law. That sounds awfully "present tense" (it says lower on that many common law countries amended laws against buggery/sodomy, does not specify UK, although I heartily hope it's included).

The point is, "buggery" and "buggers" are widely, routinely and commonly understood NOT, pace Holden, to mean "heresy" and "heretics"; but those other unsavoury people, you know who.

ON we go! I'm adding primary definitions from three (3!) more dictionaries, randomly chosen from the vicinity of the OED I pulled out:

Bloomsbury English Dictionary (2004) (emphasis as in the dictionary

bugger... 1. TABOO TERM a highly offensive term for somebody who practises anal intercourse (taboo) 2. OFFENSIVE TERM an offensive term for somebody or something regarded as unpleasant, difficult or contemptible (slang) 3. SOMEBODY OF PARTICULAR TYPE...

Collins English Dictionary (1998)

bugger... 1. a person who practises buggery 2. Taboo slang. a person or thing considered to be contemptible, unpleasant or difficult

Random House English Dictionary (1987)

1. Informal. a fellow or lad (used affectionately or abusively) 2. Informal. any object or thing 3. Often Vulgar. a sodomite 4. Chiefly Brit. Slang a despicable or contemptible person especially a man

------------------------------------


Conclusions: you can use "bugger" affectionately, or neutrally, or indifferently etc. just like you can use "fuck" and "fucking" in approval, admiration, pity etc. (fucking great, that poor fuck etc.) or "awesome" for completely un-awesome things.

However you use it, the word still has some primary meaning. The primary meanings change, but slower than usage. Incidentally, "bugger" never meant simply "heretic"--it meant a specific kind of heretic, the one who indulges in buggery. It was a wholesale slander of the undesirable kind of Christian. Eventually the religious-schism side of the word fell off, the sexual clung. Right now there seems to be a tussle between the (highly negative) sexual connotations and the "innocuous" usage.

A remark on the Random House entry. It's the only one from the bunch I looked at (in the shelves and online) that doesn't give the "sodomitical" definition first (although it does say immediately that it can be used "abusively"). Sort of begs the question, doesn't it, how could an innocent term for "fellow" or "lad" be used abusively at all. Except that the term isn't innocent, as they had to admit in 3.

But what I find interesting is 4. a despicable or contemptible person especially a man--Chiefly British slang. How can that be? Such an ugly usage, chiefly in Britain? I guess 1987 was a veeeery loooooong time ago.

But you'll take Disch's views about Card?

First, the "views", the one I quoted, consist simply of his opinion that Card knew "bugger" was an offensive term. I'm sure Disch knew much more about Card than I do. All I know is what I got from "Ender's game", a little bit from the Internet (Card's response to some criticism), and the info from this group about his homophobic views. Gee, I don't know. A documented homophobe using a homophobic slur in his writing? Coincidence? Anything's possible.

I don't need Disch's opinion to have my own suspicions, though.

Note that I was asking people what they knew and thought about it. But--thanks, Portia!-- I will shoot an e-mail to the horse's mouth... and hope I don't get an answer from the other end!

From my admittedly limited understanding of word formation in English, it seems to me that "to bugger" is the verb for the act of "buggery". But who engages in buggery, "buggers", or "buggerers"?

#165

Dictionaries are your friend. Failing that, you can look at #162.

bugger... 1. a person who practises buggery

Again with the buggery...but folks, this isn't a piece of information an educated American would have had any trouble running across at any time in the past 50 years or so. I do hope that no one suggests Mr. Card is uneducated.

I learned the meaning of the word (in theory) during my impressionable youth, through reading British books. It wasn't impossibly difficult to find usage guidelines even then.

So my opinion is that Mr. Card COULD have known the word's connotations and denotations when he wrote Ender's Game. If I, the product of Texas public schools (snarky reference to a post in a different thread, ignore me), could get this knowledge in the 1970s, I feel sure a college grad would have enough exposure to make his possession of the knowledge unremarkable. As to whether he did know these facts, honestly I won't trust any answer he gives at this point in time because there will be pressure on him to speak or act in a particular way that militates against him being honest.

re # 166 "Dictionaries are your friend." So you say!

#167

Right!

And, frankly, who here doesn't believe Card must've heard of this a zillion times by now?

Dune. Good book, Dune. Odd that I don't have it. Ah yes. I kept thinking I need to find a copy that's not pulpy-looking.

>169 LolaWalser: Lola, Dune as a read is very much worth ignoring the hideous covers the publishers have slapped on it over the years. Tear it off, if it offends thee. (What is it about this thread that it makes me feel all Biblical and stuff?)

But please don't deny yourself the chance to meet the REAL (well, sort of, you know what I mean) Duncan Idaho, and Wellington Yueh of evil memory, and experience Paul Atreides' teen-aged put-down of one of Arrakis' most powerful men ("Or, one might add, in a drawing room far from water." Haven't looked it up, could have the exact words wrong, but the sense is that), and read for yourself the call-outs from the Orange Catholic Bible.

Excellent stuff.

Unfortunately, while dictionaries perform a useful function, it's the speakers who actually define a language and its lexicon. And those of us in the forum who live in the UK, and are thus native speakers of British English, say that the word "bugger" is very rarely used as a homophobic slur. That should be evidence enough.

You might also, for example, look up the word "pants" in your dictionaries. I doubt any of them will mention that it's current British slang for "rubbish" or "crap". That doesn't mean that "pants" doesn't mean that. Because the speakers of the language say it does.

Oh, I read (and used to own) the first four Dunes. But they were all these small paperbacks with garish covers.

#171

Ian, meaning and (dominant) usage need not overlap, as I thought I explained enough. You are insisting in making (your) usage paramount, the measuring stick of all. Well, so sorry to disappoint you, but "bugger" happens to be a dirty word you happen to be using with a non-dirty intention. No amount of soaping and dry-blowing is going to make this one smell like roses.

Maybe it's because I have no taste, but I absolutely love some of the horrible, garish, and pulpy covers that Dune and its sequels have sported over the years.

Wish I could gather up a collection of them.

But like I said, I'm a bit odd.

- M

#173 You persist in missing the point. You claimed earlier that you didn't believe us when we said "bugger" was rarely used as a homophobic slur because the first meaning in the dictionary was "sodomite". If you were British, or had spent several years in the UK, perhaps you might be able to argue the point. We never denied the meaning - in fact, we said most people understand it to mean exactly that. But that doesn't mean it's used as a homophobic slur.

#175

I never "claimed" that I "didn't believe" anything. I asked about the recognition of "buggers" as a slur, by Card, by his audience, in the US and elsewhere. You don't recognise it as a slur, fair enough. Holden thinks it means "heretic", fine.

If you were British, or had spent several years in the UK, perhaps you might be able to argue the point.

How about if I grew up among British expats, going to a British school, and speaking (British) English as my first language, am I then allowed to have an opinion?

If not, bugger off, my friend. I mean this in utterly neutral, non-homophobic fashion.

176>I never "claimed" that I "didn't believe" anything. I asked about the recognition of "buggers" as a slur, by Card, by his audience, in the US and elsewhere.

You didn't really ask, you pretty much asserted that it was a slur.

I don't think anyone denies here Card has opinions on these issues that most of us find truly offensive. I think many of us are concerned that the term "bugger" that is used commonly by many, many people in a vulgar, yet non defamatory way, is being asserted to be obviously a gay slur, and that if we don't all agree, we're a bunch of illiterate gay bashers.

to continue beating a well beaten horse...Lola...if a Brit told you to "sod off", how would you take it? On this argument i agree w/ the brits here who go w/ the common usage they are familiar w/ and use regularly as opposed to etymology.
ie..from the English to American slang dictionary..

http://english2american.com/dictionary/b.html
"bugger 1 n jerk. Or substitute any other inoffensive insult (�git� works just as well) 2 v sodomise 3 -off: a friendlier alternative to �fuck off.� 4 interj �rats.� Stand-alone expletive usable in a similar way as �bollocks�: Oh, bugger! "

and browsing through various linguistics boards that discuss current usages give the same general impression - whatever its origins, in current usage, it has little to do w/ buggery. It's probably a good thing that we never shared a class..A grad school professor once said that i debated like Huey Long...and two of us in one seminar would probably be overkill! (ummm joke...)

#174 - Michael,

You aren't alone. I also love a good, garish cover. To me the most recent versions of Dune didn't really have pulpy covers, so Lola might want to pick one of those copies up.

But whether it's a sign of my lowbrow tastes (I still like Isaac Asimov, so my tastes are immediately suspect) or what I love a good, cheesy cover.

You didn't really ask, you pretty much asserted that it was a slur.

Yes, I asserted that it's a slur (because it is), and I asked how it was perceived by Card's audience in view of this. "Nigger" is a racial slur, whether it's used in homeboy banter, or down in some redneck hole in Texas. We're having a short-circuit in communication somewhere... Oh, I see. You're understanding "slur" purely functionally--something is a slur if it's used with the intent to disparage. I disagree. There is a slur in meaning, not only in usage. Look up the examples I've given of cusswords that can be used in tenderest manner. If the term "slur" in my posts bothers you, replace it by "a pejorative".

#178

if a Brit told you to "sod off", how would you take it?

Bob, perhaps you missed my last post, but I speak "British". As for my reactions, depends on the circumstances, just like it would if someone told me to fuck off.

We can play the dictionary game till the cows come home. I've given different examples from different dictionaries, and they all explain the negative and the neutral usage. Again, what are we debating here? The meaning of the word or its usage? And why are we debating? I noted Sales' and Holden's opinions, which they (well, Ian for sure) magnanimously extend to all native British speakers. None of these people, ever, use "bugger" as a slur, and but a few even know what it means. No one, certainly not in Britain, ever whispered a word about it to Card, who also used "bugger" in the best of faiths.

whatever its origins, in current usage, it has little to do w/ buggery.

This is like saying sugar has little to do with sugary. Bugger and buggery are lexically connected and will continue to be so. If you mean that they are superseded as terms (negative or neutral) for gay men and anal sex, I agree--but they still MEAN these things, whether one's aware of that or not.

I love a good, cheesy cover.

I can appreciate good cheese, but this was just some boring embossed crap. And I really don't like small paperbacks when the books are thick.

"Oh, I see. You're understanding "slur" purely functionally--something is a slur if it's used with the intent to disparage."

Of course. Function and intent are very important to me. I think they should be important to everyone before they start throwing stones. But isn't your point and Disch's that the term was used by Card, TO disparage?

At this point I know you've read some of the other thread and know I have other problems with the novel. The antigay thing to me about the novel, just seems contrived. I just don't buy that it was intentional. If you want to argue that it's subconscious, that's quite another story. But you can do a structural or psychological reading of any text, from any point of view, which might be useful, but not necessarily justification for building the gallos.

Like I said, you can hang Card on the strength of his online essays, you don't need Ender's Game for that.

I'm not interested in "hanging" Card at all, and I'm more than happy to leave his subconscious to himself. I entered this thread (message #63), as others were merrily engaged in a Card spitfest, with an idle question about his choice of the term "buggers" for the disgusting enemy race.

I find the linguistic debate that ensued more interesting than "Ender's game", but then, the book didn't leave a deep impression on me. I just skimmed the reviews here on LT, and they can be summarised as fanboy woohooing and wowing, with a few dissenting voices. The thing would be to get THOSE people to debate the novel.

As for Card and buggers, if I hear back from him I'll report.

Here's how to email him and ask the bugger:

http://www.hatrack.com/contact.shtml

I can actually belive that OSC didn't know about buggers meaning (they who) sodomise. He went to BYU and U of Utah and spent his mission in Brazil. One thing Mormons pride themselves on is modesty and purity of language. Ie they do not swear, and when I say do not swear, I mean they DO NOT SWEAR, ever, my dad freaks when I say 'bloody', Jesus christ is out too, as is hell, if someone is to meet a mormon, and knows it before hand they will almost invariably be told not to swear. In BYU they will not insult each other, in Brazil he wouldn't be exposed to any english speakers.

In explanation, i'm in england, my parents bought me up mormon, they still are but i'm inactive, basically atheist, but I have a friend who's family emigrated to Utah and she went to BYU - not to mention the Missionaries who are very suprised when they come here.

While bugger is a slur against those who practice it, it has never been aimed at gay people specifically. Just because it decribes an act most gay men indulge in does not make it a slur for gay people. All english people who are old enough know exactly what it means. In no sense has it ever meant 'a gay person' in the way faggot does for americans, if you call a person a bugger he is an upleasant person which possibly derives from the fact the act is percieved as unpleasant, but does not imply gayness in any sense.

I think a more accurate sense for the word could be derived from a Thesaurus, looking up gay does not list bugger and vice versa therefore not synonyms.

Yes OSC is anti gay, as are all mormons but the use of the word is coincidental.

Thanks for the insights, Muse.

That closes the deal as far as I'm concerned...

While bugger is a slur against those who practice it, it has never been aimed at gay people specifically.

Simply, you're wrong. "Bugger" isn't something (only) "aimed at", it means (as I'm beginning to weary of pointing out) a man who practises anal sex, that is, homosexual men (whether a given individual actually indulges in that kind of sex or not--it's just taken to be a feature of the category "male homosexual"). The word entered the vocabulary in 16th century, quickly losing any vernacular meaning except the denigratory sexual one. It lived hale and hearty all through 20th century--you can hardly find any contemporary account of (Anglo) modernism, say, without running into it.

And it still lives.

That much you can glean from dictionaries, or if you're feeling studious, from any number and kind of material on the web. I can't comment further on the ignorance of people who have never come across buggers and buggery--explicitly--in literature, movies and commentary without giving offence, I suppose, however far any such intention were from mine. As for Card, we already considered the option that he (having grown up under some desert rock, apparently) truly ignored the word's meaning when he published the book; I don't see why and how I (or anyone) have to make up my mind about it at all.

I want to make one more general remark about the clashing views we exposed here. It seems to me there's one "school of thought", which I'll call the Humpty Dumpty school, that claims, approximately "Words mean what I say they mean..." i.e. the meaning of "bugger" depends solely on the use, and if you use the word "innocuously", it is thereby "innocuous", and "In the end, the question is who's to be the master", and that's the argument from authority, such as posed by our British experts.

The other "school", let's say that of Earnest Alice (that would be me), insists that words (some at least--I considered narrowly the example of "buger" and "buggery") don't become emptied of all meaning with every use. Has anyone wondered WHY people say "bugger off", "bugger this or that", "that silly bugger" and so on? Why "fucking great"? Why not "knitting great"?

I'm sick of holding forth, so cutting to the chase--these words--bugger, fucking, awesome, nigga of rap lyrics--are used because of the charge they carry, the energy of the transgression, negativity, taboo... "Damn" once used to be a serious swearword, as bad as "fuck" was... what, 70 years ago? "Damn" is now the mildest of expletives, but when I say someone's "damn beautiful", or that I'm "damned if I know", these cliches are formed with "damn" precisely because of its original charge.

It's no coincidence we bugger this and that instead of, whatever, peeling this or that. Fuck off, not skip off, piss away, not turnip away and so on.

>188 LolaWalser: Simply, you're wrong.

Number of people who disagree with you: many.
Number of people who agree with you: apparently none.

One would suggest that *you're* the one who is wrong here.

Also, please stop saying that I think 'bugger' means 'heretic'. I never said that. Rather, I was making the point that you can 'prove' anything with dictionaries if you try, and that they don't always reflect current usage. Also, as you're clearly unaware, the OED is considered the dictionary of choice in the UK.

Finally, I quote this because I think it bears repeating. It is absolutely right in every sense.

While bugger is a slur against those who practice it, it has never been aimed at gay people specifically. Just because it decribes an act most gay men indulge in does not make it a slur for gay people. All english people who are old enough know exactly what it means. In no sense has it ever meant 'a gay person' in the way faggot does for americans, if you call a person a bugger he is an upleasant person which possibly derives from the fact the act is percieved as unpleasant, but does not imply gayness in any sense.

Question: if I call someone a "dirty bastard", am I

a) questioning both their personal hygiene skills and their parentage?
b) suggesting they are a pervert?

"The other "school", let's say that of Earnest Alice (that would be me), insists that words (some at least--I considered narrowly the example of "bugger" and "buggery") don't become emptied of all meaning with every use."
All cultural units shift in meaning, but retain their basic form. At least that was the concept as it was presented to me in reading Roland Barthes -specifically his metaphor about the rebuilding of the Argo. The fake or duplicate gradually supplants the original. I think this happens all the time. One can always argue about the loss that occurs when meanings shift, but in this instance I don't think we're losing anything useful.
I've read (I don't know if it's true) that soccer has evolved from a game that involved a vanquished foe's head instead of a ball. Should we use the knowledge of that possible origin to claim that the sport of soccer is inherently murderous and barbarous, or do we recognize that the violence has been abstracted in a constructive fashion?

#189

If you were less blinded by my fascinating personality, you'd have noticed the contributions of those who seem to share my views. However, the idea that I may care about not having as many "votes" as people who... read less than I do, shall we say, is about as bothersome to me as the idea I'd never win over Shrub's majority.

Also, please stop saying that I think 'bugger' means 'heretic'. I never said that. Rather, I was making the point that you can 'prove' anything with dictionaries if you try, and that they don't always reflect current usage. Also, as you're clearly unaware, the OED is considered the dictionary of choice in the UK.

But you didn't prove anything. In fact, I proved (#162) that you, ah, misrepresented the truth. The OED, as I expected, gives meanings in a chronological order; the meaning of "heretic", as the OED explicitly points out, is "obsolete".

What a pity it is you have such a good dictionary yet apparently don't know how to use it.

Question: if I call someone a "dirty bastard", am I

It's funny to think a few days ago you flew in accusing me arrogantly of not reading others' posts, because I find it difficult to believe you read any of mine. I'll try to make it simple, only one step--read my #188 again.

In light of the point I tried to get across there: your intention and circumstances will colour how one perceives your "dirty bastard". But concerning the word "bastard", this much is certain: it is a denigratory word, a pejorative, meaning someone born out of wedlock and therefore held to be shameful. It has other negative meanings--someone mean, deceitful etc.

And, ("she repeated patiently") it's these negative meanings, the taboo, the transgression, that give it its power.

#190

If I follow you... words change, words' meanings change. Absolutely. I'm considering the example of "bugger" in this little slice of time--but cognizant of its past, because that past still impinges on the present.

Shakespeare is now distant enough from us that most casual readers need some pointers and explanations about the English of his time, and the meanings of words, even of some of those that survived to our days morphologically the same.

Bugger hasn't travelled that far yet, not at all.

I think it's travelled far enough to assume that Card did not intend the meaning as Disch stipulates. That analysis smacks of invention instead of accuracy. You've already heard from people above, who like Disch a lot,( I like Disch a lot) that he was inclined to take wild pot shots in all directions.

As also pointed out above, Card is LDS and is a currently a hardline water carrier for the religious right. So you don't need the extra window dressing of "bugger as deliberate slur" to find yourself infuriated by this guy.

#193

um... I hardly ever commit a "LOL", but I'm sorely tempted now... :)

"Infuriated"? Look, Arthur, I've been patient, I ignored your inflammatory descriptions of my imagined tone--"throwing stones", "hanging Card" etc.--I'm truly sorry if my persistence and, er, liveliness cause you to misread my intentions, but... Wrong street, buddy. Not even the same map.

I'm not the one who keeps going on about Disch and Card, and even posting that sentence of Disch's came by purely accidentally, because I was quoting him on Heinlein, and it was in the same essay.

Incidentally, I shot off an e-mail to our ignorant Mormon, I'll give it a week or so, and post both my e-mail and the response, if any.

"Infuriated"? Look, Arthur, I've been patient, I ignored your inflammatory descriptions of my imagined tone--"throwing stones", "hanging Card" etc.--I'm truly sorry if my persistence and, er, liveliness cause you to misread my intentions, but... Wrong street, buddy. Not even the same map."

You're not in the neighborhood either, buddyette. ;)
You're way out of bounds here. I'm not being talking about you. I could easily be talking about me. I'm not a fan of OSC. And OF COURSE, I'm speaking metaphorically. I mean ANYONE can be infuriated by Card and want to, figuratively speaking, "hang" him. He infuriates ME.
I've never been pointing a finger and talking about you.

okey dokey!

An interesting thread....

Dune is certainly worth reading.

Opinions differ on the sequels. Me, I fell out half-way through the third book (God-Emperor of Dune) when I realized that my time would be better spent reading something else; on the other hand, I know a guy who has read ALL of the sequels/prequels.

OSC is a hateful bigot and a religious lunatic. He does not get a dime from me.

Re: "bugger".
Monty Python's Flying Circus came to PBS in America with the 1974-75 season. There's a tremendous degree of overlap between Python fans and SF fandom.

Everyone in America who watched Python quickly learned the meaning - and use - of the term "bugger".

When the short version of Ender's Game was serialized in Analog in 1977, the universal response to OSC's naming of his enemy species "Buggers" was to snicker.

OSC was working in theater in the '70s. But that was in Utah. So it's certainly possible that he was ignorant of the sexual meaning.

I thought at the time that Ender's Game was carefully calculated to appeal to the bright 12-year-old - that is, to the core audience for SF.
It succeeds at this. I fell out of those sequels, too.

Thanks, Bob.

I gave up on the DUNE series at just about the point you did.

I wonder if a writer can compose a legal document that would prevent folks from share-cropping his/her universe after they died. At least for the 75 years until copyright runs out.

I'd be interested in finding out. I suppose the estate controls such matters...

Having not read any of this crap since musereader back at #186, can we just admit to ourselves that bugger means different things to different people, after all, exterminators can be called buggers for heavens' sake, and that since none of us are OSC (are you, Lola?), or know him personally well enough to know what his thought was with regard to this, and just frackin' move on?

What made me think the SF group would be the best place to learn the etymology of "buggery"? If you must, take it to another thread so I can "x" it.

geneg, what are you doing here? Get your ass back to the Pro & Con group so we can continue arguing there.

Hey, Gene can start an argument anywhere he goes. A rare gift, that...

...touched by the Muse!

quote "a man who practises anal sex, that is, homosexual men" that's where your logic breaks down, anal sex does not = homosexual in british society. It's a dirty thing no one wants to admit to but is done to both women and men. Devious men do it with thier wives.

And Yes, I was trying to say OSC being LDS lived under a rock. Monty Python is the kind of thing that would be 'immoral' on the BYU campus, and no student would have broken the rules to see it. Mormons have this thing where they turn and walk away when they see/hear offensive stuff, they won't let it touch them. eta I know exactly where this attitude comes from, the 13th article of faith (being chaste and benevolent).

I have bought dune recently, I saw the version with David Bowie in it a long time ago and barely remember it.

carnophile, you must be mistaken. I don't know anything about Pro & Con. Is that a group? Do they argue there? Oh, my, my sensibilities are fractured by argument. You must be thinking of another geneg.

I've noticed you here for a month or two now. Unlike Pro & Con which is where I learn a little and bloviate a lot, here I learn a lot and bloviate, but a little.

#203

Er... it's all up in those previous posts, really. I'm not often accused of making my points too subtly, but perhaps the point itself was too subtle this time. Perhaps.

If you want references that explicate the "gay" meaning of bugger--from the literature, movies, commentary etc. that I mentioned--just ask.

And there's AsYouKnowBob's excellent "Monty Python" example, for starters!

Now, Dune... well, goshdarn, Portia, you may have already read it by this time!

#205

Oh, we can't talk of buggers here, but Pro & Con are admissible? Pfffft to that, say I.

For goodness sake, look the word is used as and means dirty because the act is dirty, whether with a man or woman, its something gay men do, it is not what gay men are. It is percived that way by everybody in british society all the way through it's history, not just the ingnoramus now.

http://everything2.com/e2node/Buggery

Wow, Ziggy Stardust riding a sandworm! Now THAT must have been a sight to see!

#208

***sigh***

Live long and prosper!

Thank you, Lola.

>206 LolaWalser: - not quite but getting there

Original Poster here - received book (Dune in case anyone lost track) in the mail yesterday (a thank you to Lori on Bookmooch in case you're here). Currently on page 139...

Oddly enough, when I started the book I realized "Hey, I've read this before..." but then I quickly realized that that only applied to the first 20-30 pages - so at some point I picked up the book and started reading - I am guessing at somebody's house or at a bookstore - and then either didn't borrow it or buy it. (If I had gotten it from the library or borrowed it I would have read the whole thing even if it was awful.)

My impressions so far - certainly readable, engaging enough writing style, at least one or two likeable/interesting characters (Paul and Halleck). My mental SF classification system has so far decided this is - "space opera" and "soft" SF but with enough "hard" SF and cultural/political/military ideas to interest me.

The "soft" part comes from the religious/supra-normal mental skills- "Truthsense"/prophecy part - these are not extensions of proven technology/science as currently understood but require another level of "suspension of disbelief" (i.e. magic) - "Hard" SF components would be the "stillsuits" and adaptations to desert conditions. Not defining these terms for anyone else - just my own internal tagging system.

I've greatly enjoyed the tangential discussion arising from this thread - no need to stay on topic since the original question ("Should I read this?") was answered ("yes, do").

My mental SF classification system has so far decided this is - "space opera" and "soft" SF but with enough "hard" SF and cultural/political/military ideas to interest me.

What was especially ground-breaking at the time was that Dune was science-fiction with an ecological theme.

In retrospect, it's hard to keep in mind that that was something relatively new to the genre.

I'd just like to mention a particularly good audio version of Dune that I listened to. The first time I read the book, but when I needed to reread it for a class, I decided to try out the audio version.

I checked it out of the library so it was on cassette - 16 of them! The narrator was George Guidall. ISBN 1556909330

Unfortunately, I don't see that version in an updated format, but if it exists I recommend it to anyone that listens to audio books. A woman reads the chapter starters by the Princess Aralun (sp?). Guidall's voices and narration are top notch. My only quibbles were every so often he made Jessica sound a little wimpier than I would have liked, and Count Fenrig is annoying when talking at a party, but he's only a minor part and he's supposed to sound odd at that time. The written text itself has the hesitations and uhmmms in it. Both are very minor issues to an otherwise excellent narration.

Overall very satisfying to listen to.

edit - just noticed it's also on CD. In my case, I go with whatever one of my nearby libraries has. :D

Regarding Card, Ender's Game, and buggers, it seems to me that the question is not what bugger meant at that period in time, but what Card might have perceived the word bugger to mean.

Well, someone has written to Card to ask so maybe he'll be good enough to answer honestly.

I'm not betting on it, mind you...

rojse, if you missed the section on buggery, somewhere near the mid one hundred messages of this thread addressed that subject ad nauseum. Go back and read them.

#33 // there are only two books which follow on from Frank Herbert's last Dune book - Hunters of Dune and Sandworms of Dune. And few people believe they're actually true to FH's vision.//

There are only two books so far. Paul of Dune is not yet published.

As to whether one believes the Brian Herbert books are true to Frank Herbert's vision... That's a matter of questioning the truth and trustworthiness of Brian H and the publisher. That's close to saying the Brian Herbert books are not based on Frank Herbert's notes, outlines, etc.

That's a big step. I think it might be appropriate to say, this material was Frank's background material. It suited his purpose and creative process. He may have had reservaations about publishing it, or doubts that he could bridge the gulf from his background material to his published material.

Case in point: JRR Tolkien: look at the multi-volume books, containing multiple versions of stories that pre-dated Hobbit/LOTR. Tolkien spent a lot of time trying to bring his pre-histories into line with details that changed or developed in course of LOTR.

No one has suggested, that I know of, that Christopher Tolkien has invented or embellished his dad's materials in the History of Middle-Earth volumes. Yet some of that differs markedly from the books published while JRRT was alive.

Paul of Dune is set between Dune and Dune Messiah. It is not in anyway based upon the notes for "Dune 7".

While FH contradicted himself many times in the Dune books - and in commentary elsewhere - not a single word he has written makes it seem likely that a) Daniel & Marty were cross-dressing robots, b) the Butlerian Jihad would be an actual war against thinking machines, c) the Duniverse would feature brains in jars, and, most damningly, d) that all the institutions present in Dune would have been created in that exact form 10,000 years previously.

>218 cad_lib:

I assure you, Paul of Dune has been published. It came out here last month. I should know, I held a copy in my grubby little hands. I didn't want to, honestly, but I had to process the new books that day.

Whoa!

Cross-dressing robots? Brains in jars? WHAT happened to Dune when I wasn't looking?

I'm trying mighty hard not to get intrigued, but... brains in jars!

How I love 'em.

...wish someone would collect Brian Herbert's head in a jar.

CadLib: (#218):

"As to whether one believes the Brian Herbert books are true to Frank Herbert's vision... That's a matter of questioning the truth and trustworthiness of Brian H and the publisher."

I have no trouble questioning the trustworthiness and integrity of little Brian and his publisher: they possess little of either. Brian saw a chance to exploit his dad's fame and went for it. Hear that moo-ing from the barn? That's a cash cow, waiting to be milked.

Boy, is Junior in for a karmic ass-kicking in the next life when dear old dad gets hold of him...

"Brains in jars" sounds like an entry in the Bad movies thread. I seem to recall several movies that used brains in jars for their storyline.

"Donovan's Brain", "Brain That Wouldn't Die", "Brain from Planet Arous"..."Gene's Brain" (weirdest of the lot), etc.

#223

And my fave is...

The Screaming HEad (with Michel Simon, of all people).

"A scientist invents a serum that keeps a dog's head alive after its body dies. When the scientist dies of a heart attack, his crazed assistant cuts off his head and, using the serum, keeps the doctor's head alive and forces it to help him on an experiment to give his hunchbacked nurse assistant a new body."

They don't make them like that anymore!

Who could forget Mr Spock's Brain?

I'll bet you thought that last was a joke, eh Cliff? Shows you just how little you know. . .

Gene, by now you should know I had my puckish humor function removed after a severe attack of the giggles some months back nearly killed me...

A serious question: I've never read the Dune books (for these purposes, given the near unanimity of opinion in this group, the Dune books means Frank Herbert's Dune books) are they worth the time and effort to read? I know most books have a range of opinion, but I get the feel Dune is universally recommended, along with several, but not all of the others. Could someone here list the Dune books in sequence in which they are to be read along with a relative ranking scheme for quality, interest, etc. say five stars for Dune and measure the rest against it.

Spock's brain! Nice! Bones was great in that episode!

I'm a geek ...

For me, it would be more like ***1/2 (out of 5) for the first DUNE, **1/2 for the second (DUNE MESSIAH) and ditto for the first half of CHILDREN OF DUNE (after that I got bored and gave up).

Dune ***
Dune Messiah ***
Children of Dune **
God Emperor of Dune **
Heretics of Dune **
Chapterhouse Dune ***

#229

Pretty much what the Dune series says.

Ignore the prequel it isn't needed.

Personally I am a little more generous than Cliff but the payback does suffer with each additional book IMO.

Further re: Brian Herbert:

Anyone who would turn his father's literary legacy over to a talentless hack like Kevin J. Anderson is nothing short of despicable.

Gene - Just read Dune. It is awe-inspriring. I tried to read the second one and got bored, so my recommendation is to stop after Dune.

Dune is worth a read. It really is. Of the the list of SF books that are endlessly, endlessly, glowingly endorsed -Ender's Game, Armor, The Foundation -it is the one that really pays a return on investment. That it's prose is spotty shouldn't be a surprise, and definitely shouldn't be a deterrent. It's a complex SF novel with a number of considered concepts. AND, as a number of people here have said, it can be viewed as a stand alone novel -it's a complete train of thought. I have never thought it necessary to read the sequels.

Arthur...agreed.

You can stop at the first one and not miss a thing. And the prose IS spotty. But, as I've said, Frank Herbert should sure as Hell could build a universe...

#217

I have been reading all of those posts, and am now more confused than when I started. Thanks for that, everyone.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bugger

However, this link cleared the debate up for me. It originally meant heretics whom commit unnatural acts, and is certainly a definition that Card might have been familiar with.

#229

Dune is excellent - go and read it. I won't go any further, because I don't want to spoil it any more than it has already been. Lots of ideas, interesting characters, well written and an exciting plot. Can't ask for more than that. A full ***** for that one.

If you like the first book, I would suggest you try reading the rest of the series at least once, although you might not enjoy them as much as the first novel.

But my opinions for the other books...
Dune Messiah - **1/2
Children of Dune - ****1/2
God Emperor of Dune - ***
Heretics of Dune - ***
Chapterhouse Dune - ***

re #238: You're a better man than I am, Rojse. I wish I had never read those posts at all. They just seemed so - - slimy.

#240

When I say I read them, half the time I was wondering what had happened to all of the nice, friendly placid people that normally post on here. Certainly, Card is quite an outspoken homophobe, but it does not automatically mean that his aliens were homosexuals because he used the word bugger.

In fact, I had thought the word bugger actually was a synonym for a rude f-word, fink.

Garrison Keillor featured Frank Herbert on his Writer's Almanac tonight. Happy Birthday, Frank!
Here's what he said:

It's the birthday of the science fiction writer Frank Herbert, born in Tacoma, Washington, in 1920. He was a photographer during WWII. He went to the University of Washington, but he didn't graduate because he only wanted to study what interested him, so he refused to take the required courses for a major. He worked at newspapers and magazines, and he published his first book, The Dragon in the Sea (1955), an ecological science fiction novel.
Then he got asked to write a feature article about an ecological project: a government-sponsored project to halt the spread of sand dunes on the Oregon coast. Herbert was so fascinated by this topic that he ended up with way too much material and never wrote the article. But he kept researching for six years, and then he wrote a novel that got rejected by 23 publishers. But finally it was accepted by Chilton, a minor publishing house in Philadelphia known mainly for its auto-repair manuals, and Dune was published in 1965. It's a science fiction novel about a desert planet, but also about ecology, politics, and religion. Dune has sold more than 12 million copies.

Wow, I didn't know Chilton of Chilton's Auto Manuals was the original publisher of Dune. That's neat.

We got to see Garrison Keillor once. He gave a talk here in Texas and then stood patiently in the lobby for hours afterward greeting each of the 200+ people that lined up to meet him or ask him to sign a book. I was very, very impressed with him.

The Dragon in the Sea isn't an ecological sf novel. It's about a submarine stealing oil from beneath the enemy's nose during a war.

Sterling Lanier, a science fiction writer himself, had been hired by Chilton to set up a sf list. It was, I believe, the first sf novel he bought. It had already been serialised in Analog, and proved popular there (which is why it's odd that so many publishers rejected it).

#244

I thought only part of it had been serialised, and the publishers of the time did not think that the SF market would want to purchase thick books that involved a lot of different subjects.

And now, it seems that the SF market is the complete opposite now - we only ever see thick SF books, and few new books to read that clock in at less than five hundred pages.

My understanding was it was all serialised, although under two titles - Dune World and Prophet of Dune.

Yes, the market has definitely changed. I suspect Dune is as much the culprit as fat post-tolkien fantasies are...

I read them in the original serialization. That was when Analog was large format. Beautiful Schoenherr covers and interior illustrations.

One issue that seems to have been lost in all the argument over whether the term "bugger" is or is not a slur against homosexuals is that in the book Ender's Game (and its sequels) the "buggers" in the end, come off as being very sympathetic.

Sure, through much of the first book, they are "the enemy", but one of the main conclusions of the book is that they shouldn't have been, or at the very least, humanity's response to them was wrong. By the time Speaker for the Dead rolls around, Ender is a full-blown advocate for the "buggers", having created his Speaker movement in large part to honor and possibly revive the formics as a viable race.

It is hard to reconclie the idea that Card was attempting to slur homosexuals by nicknaming the insectile aliens "buggers" when (a) there is a long science fiction tradition of calling such types of aliens by some variant of the word "bug", (b) the insectile aliens turn out to be deserving of sympathy, and (c) the main character of the novel (and later series) ends up advocating on their behalf.

I also always thought there was a sort of congruence between Andrew Wiggins' nickname "Ender" and the formics nickname "bugger", but maybe I'm reading too much into that.

If it helps any, "Dune" was a New York Times bestseller in both hard cover and paper back.

To me, there was one thing about Herbert Snr himself - he was something of a visionary in that he recognised the critical importance of environmentalism long before 'tree-hugging' became bankable - and Dune illustrating a central human paradox: in terms of the timeless terrain of money, poltics, religion and the relationships thereof, plus ca change...

So, while not quite must-read, most definitiely worthwhile IMO

#235 "I tried to read the second one and got bored, so my recommendation is to stop after Dune."

Ditto.

250: How so?

Sure, there's the Imperial Ecologist and whatnot, but it seemed to be a debate about the proper use and exploitation of resources.

Arrakis: melange::Saudi Arabia: oil.

Later books show how an over-reliance on a single energy source could be disastrous. Like the United States, the entire political, religious, and economic landscape is dominated by our need for oil. Everything from the cars we drive to the career criminals we re-elect.

And once Paul Atreides is in power, the first thing he does is commit genocide against his opponents, Hitler-style. If anything, it foretells the excesses and fanatical philosophies of ecoterrorists like Earth First! and PETA.

#251

There is quite a large environmental aspect to the novels, which only gets fully revealed in later books. The giant sandworms can only survive in Dune when the sandtrout are sufficiently present to lock water up, for example. Or that planetary modification can have quite far-reaching consequences that were never originally envisioned. Part of this was locked up in the question on the use and exploitation of resources, as you mentioned.

I never connected Paul Atreides' jihad with the environmental aspect of the book, rather, I connected it with the religious aspect of Dune instead.