“Two Sides
of the Same Coin”
First Hack at Analysis of Ender’s Game
Mary Ann Nguyen
Initially,
when I finished reading Ender’s Game, I was bothered by it. While I had devoured the book in the matter of
two days, engaged and captivated, I concluded in the end that I was not
satisfied with the story because Orson Scott Card did not do what I wanted him
to do with the story. Not everything fit
together neatly like the way I thought it should. There were thoughts and ideas that he had
thrown out in the middle of the book that didn’t seem to be finished. Did the kind of symbolism that I thought
exist mean anything at all? A book that
I had surmised to be more than about war turned out to be simply that, a book
about war.
The
plotline was simple. There was no surprise.
Ender was born to be “the one” to save the
world. He was brought to
And
now we have found the real story. This
is not a book only about war; it is a story about the coming of age. Ender represents a prototype of each one of
us weaving through the world, trying to make sense of it, defining who we
are. We do so by asking ourselves if we
are good or if we are bad. In this
novel, Orson Scott Card contends that man has the propensity for evil yet the
possibility for good. We often choose
evil, though we do not want to.
But
if man has a natural propensity for evil, then why did Colonel Graff, the adult
in charge at the
He
also doesn’t want to play their games or be manipulated by them. As long as he felt like he was more clever than them and was beating them at their own
game, he was willing to play along.
It’s a story of children versus adults.
Adults are always in control and yet children are being allowed to make
adult decisions. The irony of the story
is that it’s ultimately children who end up saving the world.
But,
at the same time, it’s the adults who keep the upperhand
in this story. If Ender had known that
he was really fighting the buggers, he would not have been able to do it so
well. As long as he thought he was only
playing a game, there was no conscience involved. In this way, they were able to save Ender
from having to really deal with the guilt of his actions – though inevitably,
he still laid it upon himself. They
understood that Ender was still a child.
Ender was not truly cold and compassionless. He was still just a kid after all…
It
seems that Card would have us believe that it is easier for adults to be cold
and compassionless than it is for children.
Throughout the entire book, Ender’s struggle was with the question of
whether he was good or bad. Above all
else, he feared being the same as his brother Peter, whom we are initially led
to believe is the embodiment of evil.
It is at the beginning of the book that we find Peter
declaring to their sister Valentine, “But there’ll come a day when you aren’t
there with him, when you forget…Even though you’ll remember that I said this,
you’ll think that I forgot. And years
will pass. And then there’ll be a
terrible accident, and I’ll find his body, and I’ll cry and cry over him, and
you’ll remember this conversation, Vally, but you’ll
be ashamed of yourself for remembering, because you’ll know that I changed,
that it really was an accident, that it’s cruel of you even to remember what I
said in a childhood quarrel. Except that
it’ll be true. I’m gonna
save this up, and he’s gonna
die, and you won’t do a thing, not a thing…” (13-14).
Perhaps
it would’ve been too “predictable” and obvious if Card had made the end turn
out like Peter described. Truly Card
“deliberately avoided all the literary games and gimmicks.”[1] This was the point to which I was most
bothered. It seems that Card had roundly
abused the literary concept of foreshadowing.
But – on second thought, did he really?
Perhaps
Peter’s ultimate purpose was not to become the antihero or the archenemy of
Ender, but merely stand as a shadow, to hover as his antithesis. Peter represented bad to Ender and all that
he did not want to be. Valentine
represented good and all that Ender wanted to live up to be. It helped him deal with the world to have
such black and white contrast in his mind.
However, Valentine comments later that Peter and Ender are the
same. They are just different faces of
the same coin (236). Perhaps this is
true.
At
the beginning of the book after Ender is seemingly rejected for
In
the same way, when Ender and Valentine are conversing years later, Valentine
says, “Beat the buggers. Then come home
and see who notices Peter Wiggin anymore…That’s how
you win.”
“You don’t understand,” he said.
“Yes I do.”
“No you don’t. I don’t want to beat Peter.”
“Then what do you want?”
“I want him to love me.” (242)
Probably one of the most intriguing scenes to me in
the book. But it is a commentary that Card weaves subtlely throughout:
love and hate go hand in hand, but ultimately, there is a longing for
love. And love, always, always tops
every human heart desire. Ender is
tormented by the image of his brother, but the torment is not what we think it
is. It’s not that Ender hates his
brother for all the cruelty and threats.
No, it is that he has a deep longing for his brother to love him. No one wants to hate. We hate because we have to, but deep down, we
want to love and be loved.
Card
wants to say one thing: that though
Peter was supposed to be the bad one, Valentine the good one and Ender
somewhere in between; each of them has the propensity for evil and the
possibility for good. Just like each of
us. Card does not want to make Peter be
an arch nemesis in this story, because he wants to write this reality into his
story. No bad person is all bad, purely
bad or started out wanting to be bad. We
all started out as children who just long to be loved and long to do the right
thing. We all have the potentiality to
be good and do good.
And
yet Ender ends up repeatedly choosing what he inherently knows to be bad. He not only defends himself, but the
brutality with which he makes his attacks is calculated to ensure that his
enemy would never threaten or retaliate again.
A commentary on humanity: when we
are pushed to the limit, we will always choose to preserve our lives; we will
do anything to survive, even if it means killing another person, even if we
don’t want to kill them. Ender says at
one point that it is at the point that he is hating
his bully most that he also loves him most.
It’s true. He never wants to kill
anybody. But he is pushed over the edge
every time.
In
the end after Ender kills the buggers, he feels so guilty and devastated by his
murderous acts that he sleeps like a zombie for days. He has a deep sense of anguish. He is therefore later very relieved when he
finds that the buggers have forgiven him for killing them, and he is glad that
he has a chance to redeem his actions.
That was the purpose of “Speaker for the Dead” and for the
opportunity he has of bringing the buggers back to life. Here is Redemption and second chance.
Man
is inherently evil, and yet man inherently desires to be good. It’s the story behind every story. The battle between good and
evil. This has been going on
since the world began. We want to do good, but we often choose evil, and we are thankful when we
realize that there is a chance for redemption, that we’ve been given a second
chance. Card speaks of the real need we
have to solve our problem of evil. He
writes about a character that was born to save the world. His character though often perfect was yet
still flawed, of course. But the one he
alludes to is not. Jesus came to save
us. He did so without a hitch. But it is ultimately our choice whether we
will take ahold of the redemption or leave it for
“the end of the world.” Ender had that
choice, and he took it because he recognized his need. The question is, will we? Will I?
Will you?
My conclusion? I am satisfactorily
satisfied. There really aren’t any loose
ends, and this really isn’t simply a story about war. It is a commentary about the human
condition: the longing for good, the
ease of evil and the need for redemption.
Therefore, with so much relevance, I can’t deny that this really is a
good story, after all.
© Mary Ann Nguyen 2004