Pro-life gov Sarah Palin tapped as McCain’s VP

So says AP (yet another hat tip to AmP with coverage here).

It’s a gutsy move, I’ll give him that. If nothing else, it’s going to generate a lot more discussion and media attention today than if he had gone with Romney, say. For shifting the topic of discussion from the DNC convention and Obama’s coronation, it’s a bold move.

A big asterisk, of course, would be her experience — a one-term governor of a state (Alaska) with a population of under a million. Still, I suspect that experience may not be the number one issue the Dems are going to want to talk about this election…

On a side note, gov.state.ak.us just got really slow…

Wanna learn more about Sarah Palin? Try Wikipedia (but beware of potential breaking-news Wiki-vandalism) — and the Draft Sarah Palin for VP blog.

More eventually.

AP Reporter Gets Pelosi-gate Story Right

SDG here with hat tips to American Papist and Get Religion for highlighting Rachel Zoll’s excellent Associated Press story on this week’s fallout over Nancy Pelosi’s disingenuous comments on Meet the Press about abortion and the history of Catholic thought.

Kudos to Zoll for excellence in reporting on the notoriously oft-misrepresented intersection of religion and politics. Kudos also to American Papist for his excellent blogging of "Pelosi-gate," including his still-updating timeline of events.

ADDED: Now Newsweek has a good opinion piece from a reliable source: George Weigel. (Hat tip: Ignatius Insight Scoop.)

Pelosi Violates Mythical Church/State Wall

Pelosi_2
(AP Photo)

Tim Jones, here.

This whole idea of a Wall of Separation between Church and State is
malarkey, especially in the way it is understood to mean "religion has
no place in government" – but let’s pretend for a moment that it really
is something
enshrined (though mysteriously not mentioned) in the Constitution.

Why is it that so many politicians gnash their teeth and wring their
hands and invoke this Wall when religious people dare to exercise any
influence on the political process (especially in an organized way) but
then can be so glib about violating the wall in the other direction?
Witness the recent spectacle of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi waxing
theological on Meet the Press, and clarifying for the audience why it
is that the Catholic Church really has had no consistent position on
abortion.

Whoa! Hold the pontificatin’, ma’am. The Church has a whole posse of
bishops and cardinals and even a Pope to handle these things, and we
don’t cotton to politicians and gub’ment lackeys taking Church Law into
their own hands. You’re outside your jurisdiction.

But this wall, in the minds of many like Ms. Pelosi, isn’t like a wall
between rooms in a house, or even a wall between two farms or two
countries. It is increasingly the wall of a prison camp or a ghetto.
The guards can come and go and do what they like, but the inmates
must be contained. So Ms. Pelosi sees nothing inconsistent in her
behavior. She was only speaking to the inmates, some of whom are
confused and in need of her wisdom and instruction.

Fortunately, some of our good bishops have begun to correct Ms. Pelosi, as the formidable Amy Welborn documents.

McCain, Obama Camps Embarrassed, Scrambling

Mccainobamascowl

Both organizations are racing to make new vice-presidential picks
after it was discovered late last night that they were both about to
name the same running mate. "This is worse than when Laura Bush and
three other ladies wore the same Oscar de La Renta gown to a White
House function" said an anonymous inside source, "The public generally
expects the presidential candidates to have different running mates."

The individual at the center of the controversy won’t now be named,
and both campaigns are trying to move quickly past the faux pas, while
taking measures to make sure it doesn’t happen again. "We really need
more communication on that level" said a campaign staffer, "though the
individual should have said something to alert us weeks ago. They
thought it was pretty funny, but the joke was almost on the American
people.".

"We’ve been working hard to show the public all the important
differences between our candidate and his opponent, and this kind of
thing doesn’t make it any easier.".

(Visit Tim Jones’ blog Old World Swine)

Advertising Your Competitors?

A reader writes:

As a recent businessman in the buying and selling of items on eBay, I have taken interest in the practice of buying low, selling high, and making profits. 

Okay, well, as a reseller, you wouldn’t be much of a businessman if you didn’t make a profit by selling higher than what you bought an item for. So far so good. You’re providing a service to your customers by finding out and then purchasing things at a lower price so that they don’t have to do this themselves. The profit you take is your compensation for being willing to go to this effort.

A recent debate began on a forum when a person was wondering whether it was morally acceptable to buy an item for Price X at the store, then resell it for Price Y on eBay..

I believe it is okay as buyers accept the price (either as a pre-set Price Y or a bid up to Price Y) without force and it is their choice if they want to order it online or get it in stores.  People may know how much it sells in stores, but they like the convienence of online shopping or they don’t want to wait in line or for the stores to get it back in stock.  Likewise, they may not know how much it sells in stores and think that Price Y is the "normal" price.

I would think it depends on an individual purchaser. In some cases, they might not know how much it sells for in their local stores, but maybe they do. I may know that a particular DVD sells for $14 on Amazon but I could get the same thing a the BestBuy across town for $12. Which is the better deal for me?

The answer will depend on questions like (1) how much disposable income do I have? (2) how keen am I on seeing this DVD as soon as possible? (3) how much time do I have on my hands, given that I would have to invest more in driving across town, finding it in the store, standing in line for who knows how long, and driving back rather than clicking a few buttons, and (4) how much is the gas it would take to drive there and back?

Though the copy at the local BestBuy is somewhat cheaper in terms of its sticker price, I might very well conclude that it is worth the $2 to me to order it on Amazon with just a few clicks, save myself the time and gas of going across town and back, and just waiting an extra week or so to get it in the mail.

What’s more, if I know that Amazon and the local BestBuy are generally within an acceptable range of each other, it may be worth my while to simply buy it on Amazon without even spending the time to call BestBuy, wade through their voicemail system to talk to a human, and find out if they have it in stock and–if so–how much it costs. It may just be easier (i.e., worth it to me) for me to buy online without even checking the local BestBuy.

In the current market, it will almost always be possible for me to find something at a cheaper price–if I’m willing to keep researching, or haggling, or taking a risk with a shady seller. But at some point it just isn’t worth it to me to keep trying to find a better deal, and it’s better for me to just go ahead and buy somewhere.

(NOTE: The latter is a technological limitation that I suspect will be cleared up in a few years. We’re already seeing technological convergence of information on this through price comparison sites and local "in stock"/price services. Soon I’ll be able to find out if the local BestBuy has it in stock and, if so, for how much–given no more clicks than it takes me to find out what Amazon wants for it, because both my local store and Amazon will be listed on the same site.)

So far I’m not seeing anything that raises alarm bells. You’re not in a position to know why a particular eBay bidder is bidding the way he is, and it’s reasonable for you to find things at Price X and then sell them for a markup so that the bidder doesn’t have to go to the trouble of finding them for Price X himself.

The reader goes on to write:

The debate however enters Catholic territory from this sections of the CCC:

"2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.191

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation."

This raised the question of whether the seller was obligated to inform people of the fact that it can be purchased for a lower price elsewhere (in stores) so as to not take advantage of potential ignorance.  This too me seems a bit of a stretch.  That to me would seem like one business that sells something for Price A being forced to tell constumers another store sells the same item for Price B (or likewise lower their own price accordingly).   This to me would seem to force sellers to do research that consumers should do themself, but it was argued that regardless of what research is required of buyers, it is never o.k. to take advantage as a seller of a buyers ignorance.

The arguement is not whether buyers should do research themselves as that was agreed upon, but about what steps if any the sellers need to take to prevent "taking advantage of ignorance."  To sum it up, would a good Catholic be morally required to list how much an item can be purchased for elsewhere?  Likewise, as a good Catholic buyer, if they are purchasing something they know is worth a lot more (at a garage sale for instance) then asking price, are they required to inform, not barter for lower prices, or pay the seller a higher price due to this knowledge to prevent taking advantage of the sellers potential ignorance?  I think this assumes ignorance when there may be none, but still to error on the side of doing good what does the Catholic Church teach?

Ultimately what is most desirable is an clear explanation of what the CCC means with regards to those paragraphs.

I’d like to provide such an explanation, but I don’t know that I can. The CCC contains a substantial amount of material on economic matters that is not easy to cash out (pardon the pun) in concrete terms.

Part of the reason for this is that we are at an intersection between basic moral principles and how they are to be applied to real world situations in a way that requires the use of discernment. Part of the problem also is that the Church does not presently have a detailed theology of economics; it has a piecemeal system in which some matters are clearer than others, which has been developed over the course of time to address particular economic situations.

A fundamental problem, though, is that the folks in the hierarchy are not economists and are doing their best, based on real economic concerns, to provide pastoral guidance in an area that they don’t have extensive familiarity with. The result is that they often write in an unclear manner.

It would be helpful if they provided examples to illustrate what they are talking about in passages like this, but either due to the concision with which the Catechism needed to be written or due to the fact that they had trouble thinking up clear and indisputable examples, we don’t have any.

Neither does turning to parallel texts, like the Bible verses cited in the footnote or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church or the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, help.

As far as I can tell, the clause in blue is simply de novo to the Catechism. It’s a first-pass attempt at expressing this, without clear parallels (at least ones that I’ve been able to find) in other relevant documents. (There may be some in papal encyclicals, but since these aren’t cited in the footnote, I don’t know where to look them up, and I am under an economy of time in composing blog posts, so I can’t just go read all the economic-related encyclicals and addresses.)

Taken in its most sweeping sense, the statement in blue could mean that the seller must either lower his asking price to that of his lowest competitor or must inform potential customers of what the lowest competitor sells for.

But this seems problematic for several reasons, among them the fact that this would put a burden on the seller to do research on what all of his competitors are selling for. While knowing what your competitors’ asking prices are is–to an extent–just good business practice, this is not where the burden of doing research fundamentally falls. It ultimately falls on the consumer to try to find the best price so that he can use his money wisely. It isn’t the seller’s job to do that for him.

Second, taking there may be reasons why a particular seller can’t lower his price to that of his lowest competitor. His lowest competitor may be much larger than him and able to buy in bulk and thus at even cheaper prices. Further, the competitor may even be taking a loss on the product (i.e., using it as a loss leader) in hopes of making more money on other things. Insisting that all sellers match their lowest competitor’s price thus would be destructive to the free market as it would tend to lead to market centralization and even monopolies, as the small sellers are unable to match the savings offered by the big ones.

The Church certainly doesn’t intend that.

What about informing customers of the cheapest competitor’s prices?

Again, this does not seem to be what the Church intends, and it would have the same effects of driving sales away from the smaller sellers to their larger competitors, again leading to market centralization and even monopolies. It would thus be anticompetitive.

It seems to me, therefore, that the statement in blue must be intended with some narrower sense than this.

On its face, it looks like it is a statement directed not toward typical business conditions but to atypical ones.

It includes, for example, reference to not just the buyer’s ignorance but to his hardship. That makes it sound like it is directed to the so-called "price gouging" that occurs when commodity prices rise in response to natural disasters.

It is also easier (for me, at the moment) to think of atypical situations in which one could gain a higher price by "taking advantage of the ignorance" of a buyer–or seller.

For example, if I am at a yard sale and discover that the impoverished people holding the yard sale are in possession of a Stradivarius violin that they want $5 for. If I am well of and I buy it for $5 from impoverished people who are in great need of money, this would seem to be contrary to the virtue of charity. Instead of buying it myself, I should tell them what it’s worth since they need the money more than I do (or at least I should set up some kind of profit-sharing thing with them).

I could set up a similar instance in which it is the seller who has the information about the truth worth (or worth-less-than-the-impoverished-buyer-thinks-ness) of a item, but the same principle would apply.

These situations–natural disasters, finding a Stradivarius at a yard sale, knowing for a fact that something will not do for your customer what he thinks it will–are exceptional cases and not normal business activity.

Hopefully at some point we’ll get some further doctrinal development on the matter at issue, but for the moment the clause in blue is unclear as to meaning and its plausible constructions are open to challenge.

For example, if we take the reference to the hardship of another as a statement regarding raising prices on particular commodities in times of natural disaster then the law of unintended consequences is likely to kick in.

For example, if hotel owners cannot raise their prices when a hurricane forces an evacuation then even bigger problems will result.

Why?

Because the hurricane–not the hotel owners–has caused a spike in demand for hotel rooms, and if that increased demand is not managed by price then it will be managed by something else, like who gets to the hotel first.

If I’m one of the first people to flee the hurricane and I bring my family with me then, if the hotel owner can’t raise his prices to anticipate increased demand, then I can rent one room for me and the wife and another room or two for the kids (depending on how many kids we have) and we will not be forced to economize by staying in a single room or stay with relatives or drive an extra few miles to find a cheaper hotel further from where the hurricane is going to hit.

The same applies to all of the other early arrivers.

So when the late arrivers get there, the hotel will be sold out and there will be "no room at the inn."

Whereas, if the hotel owner started raising his prices to meet anticipated demand then the finite resource of hotel rooms will be distributed more justly as those fortunate enough to be able to leave early won’t hog all the rooms with no restraint on this hoarding behavior. Instead, they may choose to rent fewer rooms or to stay with nearby relatives or to drive further.

I could discuss this further, and might in future posts, but ultimately it seems to me that the passage in the Catechism is unclear and needs further development to be cashed out in concrete terms.

It does not strike me that it is intended to apply to normal market conditions and that it is of potentially limited usefulness in atypical ones.

I also agree that whatever ethical constraints apply to the seller apply also to the buyer.

Ultimately, it does not strike me that a seller should scruple over a buyer’s motives or level of knowledge. If it is blatantly obvious that someone wants to buy a weapon to commit murder or if it is blatantly obvious that a poor person is using his money unwisely because he doesn’t know of a better deal, fine. Those are atypical situations in which the law of charity would suggest acting in an unbusinesslike manner. But as long as this kind of thing does not apply then the seller does not have a duty to advertise his competitors’ prices. Instead, he should assume that the customer knows what he’s doing, not try to second guess him, and let the market work out what the appropriate price range is for an item.

After all, we have no better method of determining the current "best price" for something than what it will fetch in a free and competitive market.

Why McCain may lose my vote

SDG here (not Jimmy).

This weekend John McCain and Barack Obama were each interviewed by that Purpose Driven Life guy.

I watched about ninety seconds of Obama before I had to read to my kids, and later I watched, I don’t know, maybe ten minutes of McCain before getting involved in something else.

At any rate, I saw enough of McCain to cheer his straight response on when life should be protected ("At the moment of conception") and his citation of his 25-year pro-life record — and again when he responded equally bluntly about Supreme Court nominees, an issue McCain himself explicitly connected to the abortion issue.

On that last point, asked which Supreme Court justices he wouldn’t have nominated, McCain named ("with all due respect") all four bad guys, and went on to emphasize the President’s responsibility to nominate justices committed to sticking to the Constitution rather than "legislating from the bench," a phrase he used twice in describing "some of the worst damage" done by justices.

He couldn’t have given a much better answer than that. And with Supreme Court nominations in the very top echelon of my concerns in this election — and my complete confidence in Obama’s ability and commitment to put forward nominees every bit as activist/evil as the likely retirees, if not more so — that’s something I really needed to hear from him.

So why — how — is McCain teetering on losing my vote?

Because he’s been sending signals that he may pick a pro-choice running mate.

If he does that, I absolutely will not vote for him. Period. I can understand others feeling differently, but that’s how I see it.

Why?

(First, a BIG RED DISCLAIMER: This post represents my thoughts, not Jimmy’s. I don’t know how Jimmy will be voting or how this issue will affect his vote.)

My feeling is that I’d rather see the GOP go down in flames, even if that means President Obama for four or even eight years, and let the GOP try to get it right next time. I’d rather throw away my vote on some hopeless third pro-life candidate, so that when the GOP leadership and party advisers wake up the morning after the election and sees the margin they lost by, and then look at the votes sucked away by that third-party spoiler, they’ll be more likely next time to do what’s necessary to get that margin back. (It’s still important to vote, even for a guy who can’t win, so that the party can see the votes they didn’t get, and understand why.)

If McCain is elected President, his vice president will be well positioned to succeed him as the party’s next presidential candidate (which could easily happen only four years from now). This time around we fended off a White House bid from pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, but Giuliani made tactical mistakes, and for awhile he looked like a credible contender. Anyway, Giuliani was only America’s Mayor. Vice-President Ridge could be a much tougher nut to crack.

If McCain picks a pro-choice running mate, his 25-year pro-life doesn’t mean squat: He’s not committed to the pro-life cause. If he’s going to position a pro-choice Republican for a White House run, he’s setting up the GOP to degrade its pro-life stance from merely nominal to strictly optional. Every president, especially every successful president, leaves his stamp on the party for years after he leaves office. The Democratic Party is still very substantially what Clinton made it, and the Bush 41/43 influence will continue to be felt in the GOP for years to come.

There are a lot of things I’m not happy about in the GOP. There are a few key issues — this is one, though not the only one — that have kept me voting GOP most of the time for most of my life. I can’t cast a vote that may eventually result in a pro-choice presidential GOP ticket.

Now, maybe McCain is just making noises about being undecided because he’s trying to win "undecided" voters by appearing moderate and creating the impression that he doesn’t have a pro-life litmus test. Maybe he’s going to pick a pro-life running mate after all, but wants it to seem that, whoever it ultimately is, he sort of happens to be pro-life, rather than making it clear that he’s excluding pro-choice possibilities from the outset.

If so, it’s a bad strategy. McCain isn’t going to beat Obama by rushing to the middle. He needs to shore up his base. If McCain or the GOP thinks that the base is so frightened of Obama that they’ll vote for him no matter what, he’s sadly mistaken.

Brideshead Deconstructed

SDG here with what’s wrong with the new big-screen Brideshead Revisited — as well as what’s right with Evelyn Waugh’s novel. (I don’t get into the 1981 ITV Brideshead miniseries in the review, but if you’re a Register subscriber you can read about it in this week’s DVD Picks & Passes column — yes, subscription required.)

Bonus: This week I re-added two long-lost reviews to the site that somehow got dropped a few years ago in a site upgrade. Strangely, they’re both excellent movies: Witness and  The Train. I’m not sure how that happened!

Children of the Mind

There is no gap whatsoever between the stories of Xenocide and its successor, Children of the Mind. The latter picks up the story exactly where the former left off.

But between the books there was a five-year lag in the real world. Xenocide came out in 1991 and Children of the Mind in 1996.

Why would that be?–especially when, as Orson Scott Card explains in an afterword to the audio book version of Xenocide, that the two were originally one novel that got so long it had to be split in half.

My suspicion is that it was because Card simply had problems getting Children of the Mind to work. He talks periodically in his audio commentaries about how there were times he’d be writing something and it just wouldn’t be working, and he knew it, and it was only later that the solution occurred to him.

I suspect that, due to the time lag between the two works and the fact that there are minor inconsistencies between them, that Card just had a really hard time writing Children of the Mind because it wasn’t working.

Some would say that the novel still doesn’t work.

I’d be one of them.

And I’m not alone.

The very first thing he says in the audio commentary at the end of this fourth book is (I’m going by memory here), "A lot of people really hated a lot of things I did in this book."

He mentions in particular that his publisher hated a plot point that occurs at about mid-story in this book.

Personally, I didn’t hate that plot point, in which a character undergoes a transformation so dramatic that it’s debatable whether the character has technically died or not.

I felt profoundly ambivalent about it, mainly because by this point the character had become so tired of life that reading about the character was no longer interesting.

Still, I understand why people would be mad about it. What happens doesn’t provide the kind of resolution you expect at the end of a major character’s story arc. It feels like the character has just been whacked off into left field instead of being given a satisfying resolution.

Speaking of left field, that’s where it felt like a major plot point at the end of Xenocide came from, and that plot point dominates the present book. If you didn’t like the "Where did this come from?" twist at the end of Xenocide, you’re likely to have trouble with the new book, too.

On the religion front, the basic crypto-apologetic appeal for Mormonism that developed in the previous book remains in place.

The only real development is that now we have some dealings with a Japanese-colonized planet and a Polynesian planet, both of which are polytheistic.

On the Polynesian planet the Christian God is openly mocked as a (quotation from memory) "perfectly balanced Nicene paradox," while lesser, finite gods are jovially celebrated, with one of the powerful characters already established being acclaimed a living god by the Polynesians, with no cross-examination of this claim.

The thing that I really hate about this novel, though, is not the way it handles religion.

It’s the way it’s written.

Card has indulged his introspective tendencies so much that now he’s positively wallowing in them.

Vast swaths of the book feel like they were written according to the following formula:

  1. Something happens.
  2. Character A notices that something has happened.
  3. Character A tries to figure out how he feels about this.
  4. Character A reviews his entire life history and how the new event relates to it while trying to sort out his feelings.
  5. Character A decides that the thing is either poignantly beautiful, something to be serenely accepted, or something to be opposed as a cruel injustice of the cosmos.
  6. Character A wonders how Character B will regard the new event.
  7. Character A reviews the entirety of Character B’s life history trying to figure out what Character B will think and how logical or illogical that is.
  8. Character B notices the event.
  9. Characters A and B talk about the new event, leading to either a moment of supreme unity between them, a moment of resigned acceptance, or a verbally and/or physically violent confrontation, possibly followed by a tearful reconciliation.
  10. Go to Step 1.

Not all of these steps occur, or occur in the same order, every time something happens, but the plot just inches painfully forward amid reams and reams of introspective monologue or emotion-laden dialog.

By this point the series has become a brooding, science-fiction soap opera, with no plot development, however small, that can occur without being emotionally analyzed in excruciating detail.

The reader wants to scream, "CAN SOMETHING PLEASE HAPPEN HERE TO END ALL OF THIS INTROSPECTION!!!???"

Also in this novel the main character–Ender Wiggin–continues to become increasingly less relevant to moving the plot forward and ever more personally passive, though that doesn’t stop the other characters from obsessing at great length about Ender and what he feels and thinks about things.

While the plot proceeds with glacial slowness, the characters do eventually manage to deal with the planetkilling fleet that is now (finally, after three novels) poised to destroy Lusitania. How they do that is actually pretty cool, and has some nice humor elements in it.

But though we do get closure on that plot point, the novel leaves another, newer plot point completely unresolved–namely: "Who are the people who created the killer virus from the previous novels and why did they make it?"

It is this question that, in the audio afterword, Card said he felt too anticlimactic to answer in the novel or in a sequel, though he was besieged for years by fans wanting to know it.

Fortunately, he’s now decided that it is worth answering, and he plans a new novel that will connect the Bean fork of the series with the Ender fork that I’ve been reviewing.

Currently, I’m reading the Bean fork, and when I have it done, I’ll review it, too. (So far, I’m liking it much better than what happens in Xenocide and Children of the Mind.)

For my money, the first book of the Ender fork–Ender’s Game–is simply brilliant (and not in the phony, British sense of "brilliant"), and well worth reading. The second book–Speaker for the Dead–is brilliant but flawed. The third book–Xenocide–is probably debatably worth reading for the  interesting stuff in it, but it is profoundly flawed. The fourth book–Children of the Mind–is simply the endlessly talky horse pill that you have to swallow if you want to get some kind of closure on the events set up in the previous three books.

NEXT (WHEN I’M ABLE TO RETURN TO REVIEWING THESE BOOKS): The first book of the Bean fork . . . Ender’s Shadow.

Xenocide

After Speaker for the Dead, we do not take another 3,000 year jump before the next sequel, only a 20-or-so year jump.

Why that long?

Because that’s how long it takes for the fleet of planetkilling starships to reach Lusitania at sub-light speeds.

Oh, yeah . . . Speaker for the Dead ended with a fleet of starships on their way to Lusitania with a planetkilling weapon.

That’s kind of a big, unresolved plot point.

Orson Scott Card has a tendency to leave major plot points unresolved at the end of his books. Sometimes it happens because his books get too long and he needs to cut them in half, but some of the time it is because the plot point deals with a question that just isn’t a priority for him.

As he explains in a commentary at the end of the audio book version of Children of the Mind, the last book of the Ender fork, where he leaves a similar big plot point unresolved, he just doesn’t feel that answering the question is that important. Either the answer is A or B, but the interesting part to him is the drama of the characters living with the tension of not knowing if it will be A or B. It would be kind of anticlimactic to reveal it, he essentially says.

I strongly disagree with this Sopranos-like school of storytelling. I think that if you’ve spent time setting up a major question in the story then you have implicitly promised the readers that you will give them an answer to this question. You may not owe them answers to every tiny issue that arises, but if you’ve staked major dramatic investment in something then you either owe them an answer in the current book or you owe them a sequel that answers it. Readers feel cheated if major elements of the story are left unresolved.

And eventually Card does get around to answering the question of whether the planetkilling fleet does or does not destroy Lusitania.

But not in this book.

That’s right. The planetkilling fleet that is out in space at the beginning of the novel is still out in space at the end of the novel.

In this case the thread is left hanging because the book got too long for Card and he had to cut it in half, but it still lessens the reading satisfaction that you get when the major threat driving the overall plot is still unresolved at the end of the book.

I thus think that Xenocide is a step down from Speaker for the Dead, which was itself a step down from Ender’s Game.

I don’t just feel this because the main driver of the plot is unresolved at the end. There are also other reasons.

For one, the story starts to get really talky. Card is an introspective writer (meaning: he spends a lot of time exploring characters feelings and motivations), and when he lets this tendency go too far it starts causing the plot to drag.

That starts happening in this book.

Basically, the characters are focused on three things: (1) Now that the Uber Prime Directive has been overthrown, can Humans and Piggies live together successfully, (2) How can we create faster-than-light travel to start evacuating the planet in case we can’t stop the planetkilling fleet, and (3) How can we stop a horrible virus that is too dangerous to be taken off Lusitania and that could devastate the biospheres of any planets that it is taken to as part of the evacuation?

Also, we get to meet characters on a Chinese-colonized world named Path and learn about their culture.

The first of the things that the characters are focused on is the most interesting dramatically (more on that in a moment). The questions of how to do FTL and how to stop the virus are kinda interesting, but the solutions to these questions more or less come out of the blue.

The characters in the story have Eureka moments after going down false paths, but they come across somewhat like when  in a Star Trek episode the characters are trying this and that and then somebody hauls off and says, "Oh! I get it! We just need to reverse the polarity!"

There is also a HUGE plot twist  right at the end of the book that just comes out of left field.

There are two kinds of plot twists: One in which, when it happens, you go, "Oh, yeah! That makes total sense! All of a sudden the earlier pieces now fit together!" The ending of The Sixth Sense is like that. It’s a twist that, while surprising, feels natural.

Then there is the "Where did that come from?" kind of plot twist–one that, while it may relate to things set up earlier in the story, does not seem to flow naturally from them but feels forced or arbitrary.

That’s the kind of plot point we get right before the end of the book.

I won’t spoil it; I’ll just note it as something that, again, diminishes the literary value of the book by asking the reader to make a big suspension of disbelief right at the climax.

So how does religion get handled in this book?

Well, we get a good bit about the religion of Path, which seems to be a development of Taoism. While he doesn’t go a lot into the doctrine of this religion–it’s a basic "honor the gods and ancestors" religion–it’s actually quite interesting because there is a certain class of people on path, known as the "godspoken," who are treated as holy people because they receive messages from the gods.

As soon as Card started describing how the godspoken receive their messages, a chill went up my spine because it was instantly clear that those to whom the gods "speak" are in fact sufferers of obsessive-compulsive disorder.

The "gods" give them feelings of profound unworthiness or uncleanliness (obsessions) and to relieve the anxiety these generate, they must perform ritualistic behaviors (compulsions), such as washing their hands over and over or tapping out rhythmic patterns with their foot or getting down on their hands and knees and visually tracing lines in the wood that the floor is made of.

I don’t know how I’d feel about this if I were a Taoist, but I find the idea of OCD sufferers being treated as holy people to whom the gods communicate is intriguing. That’s not what OCD is, but one can see how a real-world Human culture might have treated it as such. Later events in the story also make it clear that Card does not intend the role of OCD sufferers to be a slap at traditional Chinese religion.

He treats the religion of Path with respect, and one of the characters in the story ends up, after death, actually being worshipped as a god by the people of Path.

Back on Lusitania, the presentation of Catholicism continues to be problematic. Two devout characters get really good moments, and the community as a whole gets one really bad moment.

We have, in essence, a martyrdom, a pogrom, and the aftermath of the pogrom.

When one character is martyred for the faith, it is a very moving moment, and Card is really trying to do it right, even noting that the multi-hour debate that this character engaged in while being martyred was worthy of the disputations of the early Church Fathers.

The pogrom is much less successful dramatically. Oh, sure, it’s tragic when it happens, and you feel for the people who are getting hurt by it, but it just feels too much like cliches about torch-bearing Medieval fanatics willing to exterminate at the drop of a hat in the name of Christ, with people in the story actually brandishing torches, setting fire to things, and shouting that they’re doing this "For Christ!"

In the wake of the pogrom, the bishop of Lusitania gets his finest and basically his only fully-sympathetic moment as the previously stuffy and petty ecclesiastic reads the riot act to those who perpetrated the pogrom. He shames them profoundly and then announces a very moving public form of penance that the whole community will participate in, himself included, to atone for the events of the pogrom.

While Card is still trying to give the Catholic faith a fair shake, and while it’s nice to see the prickly old bishop finally (even though it is his last major scene in the novels) have a good moment, I still don’t think Card is fully successful.

Part of the reason is that it is in this novel that he starts working Mormon metaphysics into the story.

Up to now, he hasn’t done anything with the story that would imply the truth or falsity of any particular religion. He doesn’t tell us one way or the other whether the gods of Path are real or whether the Catholic God is real. Those are open questions that the characters in the story debate, but there are no definitive answers given by the author.

I’m comfortable with that.

But then he starts bringing Mormon metaphysics into things and it undercuts the religious neutrality he’s had heretofore.

Here’s how that works: Mormons believe in an endless series of finite gods who rule different worlds, often conceived of today as different universes. These beings reproduce, so there are new gods coming into existence through a process of development from unformed, uncreated eternal intelligences. One step in the process–for us at least–is being a human on the way to godhood. Mormons also believe that matter and spirit are essentially the same thing; spirit is just a more refined or subtle form of matter.

So here’s how that gets presented in the book: It turns out that all matter is made of tiny particles called philotes, which are bound together in various ways. These philotes have existed for all eternity, never having been created, in another realm called the "Outside," where they exist in a formless state, yearning (they’re at least all primitively conscious, so mind and matter are the same thing) to enter into relationships and exist in our world as part of physical objects.

Philotes come in different strengths, and inside each physical object is a master philote which is capable of holding all the others together so that the object doesn’t disintegrate. The strength of a philote needed to hold together a stone or a flower is less than the strength of the philote needed to hold together a human being. This master philote is called an aiua (eye-you-ah), but it could also be called a soul. Thus the souls of all humans have existed from all eternity in an unformed state and have grown and progressed by becoming incarnate with a bunch of other hylozoic pieces of matter.

And they can progress farther. We learn of one character who, it turns out, has a soul so powerful that he can not only animate one human body (his own) but simultaneously animate two other living human bodies as well. And one character (not the one from Path who ends up worshipped as a god) is even more powerful, having an aiua so strong that it is openly speculated that this character could be regarded as a god.

Perhaps this character could even one day bud off a new universe, because–it is speculated–there have been an infinite number of universes budded off by aiuas that got sufficiently strong in the previous universes, so there is an endless chain of universes stretching back in time with no beginning, just as there is no beginning to the philotes.

Sound familiar?

I don’t have a problem with Orson Scott Card exploring these ideas or writing a book that presents Mormon metaphysics in an imaginative form. Writers from any religious perspective can be expected to do that.

But what I don’t like is the fact that this starts forming an implicit anti-Catholic apologetic on the part of the novels, and that diminishes them artistically.

Mark Twain is alleged to have said that literature should never preach overtly but should constantly preach covertly. Card seems to be trying to follow that dictum, but he’s preaching so loudly that the art of the books suffers.

First, we have a largely unsympathetic Catholic culture, where all of the sympathetic Catholics hold their faith in a nuanced, attenuated way or are doubters or flat-out unreligious. Then we put this Catholic culture alongside a polytheistic one, with equal openness to the idea of multiple gods and the Christian God being real (compatible with the Mormon view). Then we get Mormon metaphysics thrown in and these metaphysics turn out to be true, because they provide the solution to the questions of faster-than-light travel and curing the killer virus that must be stopped.

So a Mormon writes a book that assumes Mormonism is true and Catholicism is false. What’s wrong with that?

Nothing.

But the art suffers. Card may be trying to give Catholics a fair shake–at least to a significant extent. though the fact that the series is now turning into a crypto-apologetic for Mormonism is starting to call that into question–but the art still suffers.

Here’s why: Suppose you’re a faithful Catholic on a planet in the year 5200 (approximately) and you start discovering that Mormon metaphysics is true, that we’ve all existed as unformed intelligences for all eternity, and that there is likely an eternity of universes, each created by a finite being, with no beginning and no first Creator to the whole series.

Do you:

a) Accept all this without question as the story rolls along, not noticing any problem? or

b) Sit down and have a major crisis of faith as you realize that the core of your religious beliefs appear to be false?

The second is what would happen in the real world. The first is what happens in Card’s book.

And that’s implausible, so the art suffers.

Card can’t let his characters have a crisis of faith without making it explicit that he’s having Mormonism trump Christianity, and that would violate Twain’s dictum about not overtly preaching because it diminishes the art. And it would diminish the art if the characters suddenly realized "Oh, wow, we’ve all got to become Mormons."

He can’t go there, so instead he leaves a planet-sized implausibility in how the characters deal–or rather fail to deal–with the implications that their discoveries have for their core beliefs about the world.

He may not be explicitly endorsing Mormonism in the book, but he’s implying it so strongly that the reactions of the characters become really implausible, harming the art.

Just as the book ends.

By the way . . . notice how I’ve managed to get almost to the end of a review of an Ender book without mentioning Ender?

That’s because, though Ender is in this book, he has progressively less and less to do.

The burden of moving the plot forward shifts to the rest of the cast, which consists principally of a family that Ender has married into.

And what a family it is! Everybody is either a genius physicist or a genius biologist or a genius xenologer or a genius without portfolio. Coupled with Ender’s own genius, we’ve got a lot of geniuses running around.

I could understand that in the first novel, where Ender was put in a school meant specifically for potential military geniuses, but by this point in the series the plot has become dominated by geniuses all over the place (including three more on the world of Path).

I suppose that Card might say, "Well, it’s the really intelligent people who end up being the most influential in world affairs, and geniuses tend to marry other geniuses, who already have children who are geniuses."

Maybe.

But it just feels a little . . . odd . . . literarily when absolutely all of the major characters in book after book turn out to be geniuses.

NEXT: Children of the Mind.

Speaker for the Dead

Speakerforthedead
You might think that the sequel to Ender’s Game would be set shortly after the events of that novel.

Nope.

Instead, Speaker for the Dead is set 3,000 years later, yet it still continues the story of Ender Wiggin.

How does that work? Is he an immortal being? Has medical technology banished death? Or perhaps time travel is involved. Or cryonic suspension.

Actually, it’s as mundane as the known effects of relativistic spaceflight. After the events of Ender’s Game, Andrew "Ender" Wiggin left Earth for the stars, and the only way to get there in his universe, as in ours, was by slower-than-light travel.

So while 3,000 years have passed for mankind by the time the novel begins, far fewer have passed for Ender, and he’s now a young-ish adult.

In those 3,000 years mankind has moved out into the stars and set up colonies on different worlds.

The world that is at the core of this novel is called Lusitania–the ancient name of Portugal–and it is so named because it is inhabited by Portuguese-speaking colonists from Brazil.

It is also inhabited by the second intelligent race mankind has found in the universe.

The first was the Buggers, and things went very, very badly with them. Mankind is determined not to make the same mistakes that it made with them.

The new race, known in Portuguese as the Pequeninos or "Piggies" because of their snouts, are a small, unintimidating, technologically primitive, forest-dwelling race.

But as soon as it’s found out that they have intelligence and language, mankind’s government slaps draconian restrictions on the Lusitania colony that are like the Prime Directive on steroids.

A fence must be build around the colony, whose population must now be sharply limited. The colonists must have virtually no contact with the Piggies except for two xeno-anthropologists (xenologers or xenodors) who are allowed brief, daily contact with the Piggies with the condition that they do not show human technology to them or disclose information about human society or ask questions about Piggie society that would betray human expectations of what our society would be like.

It’s maddening.

But there is a mystery on Lusitania, and the Piggies are closely connected with it.

When one of the xenologers figures out the secret, the otherwise friendly Piggies suddenly, brutally kill him.

Then they act like nothing is out of the ordinary, and the surviving xenologer can’t even ask why this was done, due to the Uber Prime Directive.

But Andrew Wiggin is called in from a nearby world to speak the death of the xenologer who was killed.

Since the events of Ender’s Game, Ender has become a speaker for the dead. This is a person who, after someone has died, performs a service (a "speaking") in which the person’s life story is reviewed and analyzed in such a way as to make sense of it. It’s not the same thing as a eulogy, because in a eulogy you say nice things about the dead. In a speaking you say honest things about them. That includes the nice, but it also includes the ugly. And yet the effort is made to understand the ugly things a person did and why he did them.

It takes twenty years for Ender to arrive on Lusitania due to slower-than-light travel, but he appears and must penetrate the mystery of the planet in order to perform his duties as speaker for the dead. He must find out why the xenologer was killed.

Speaker for the Dead is a very different novel than its predecessor. It is much more an adult novel, about ideas and adult relationships rather than kids and games and kid relationships. There are no sex scenes in the book, though there is substantial discussion of human reproduction and adultery.

It is also different in that we have a real alien environment in this novel, and much of the plot centers on figuring out the mystery of this environment and the Piggies who inhabit it.

It is a very good novel, and it also won both the Hugo and Nebula awards the year it came out (1986, the year after Ender’s Game, making Orson Scott Card the first author to win both awards two years running).

In a postscript to the audio book version, Card notes that readers are often divided about whether Ender’s Game or Speaker for the Dead is the better novel and that his idea of an ideal world is one in which people are evenly divided on this question.

Given how different the books are, it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison, but there is an answer to it, and I’ll tell you what it is . . .

Ender’s Game is better.

The reason is that, while both books contain very good elements, the sequel contains a prominent flaw due to the limitations of Orson Scott Card’s religious imagination.

Card is a Mormon, but the world he’s writing about has been colonized by Catholics.

That much is fine. It’s quite possible for a person of one faith to write convincingly and even movingly about the people of another. The guy who wrote A Man for All Seasons wasn’t Catholic, but he was able to tell the story of St. Thomas More beautifully.

But to do this kind of thing you have to be able to put yourself in the shoes of someone of a different faith in a way that Card can’t quite pull off.

It’s not that he doesn’t try. He thinks that he’s giving the Catholics a fair shake, showing good ones and bad ones, showing faithless and faithful ones, showing the joys and sorrows that apply to everyone regardless of their religion, even having a moment where Ender wants to weep because of the beauty of the poignancy involved in a married religious order (the Children of the Mind of Christ) where the spouses renounce sexual relations to better serve God, while still living together in a monastic environment.

But ultimately Card can’t do it.

In real life, Card spent time as a Mormon missionary in Brazil. He went there to convert Catholics, and he’s drawing upon his experiences there to shape his depiction of Lusitanian society.

The society he shows us is largely repulsive, with the vast majority of Lusitanians being insular, blindly obedient followers of the unsympathetic, rigid, uncompassionate bishop who opposes Ender at every turn and only starts to friendly up once Ender points out to him that, if they throw off the Uber Prime Directive, he will be able to evangelize the Piggies.

The problem is not that Card shows bad Catholics. The world has many bad Catholics, just as it has many good ones.

The problem is that the only good Catholics that he shows us are those who take their faith least seriously. The sympathetic Catholic characters are the ones who struggle with their faith or question or doubt it or who even have virtually no faith at all. (Ender falls into that category; he was baptized Catholic but not raised in the faith.)

Those who take their faith seriously end up being presented as harsh, insular, intellectually simple, under the domination of their bishop, and suspicious of outsiders like Ender.

The message that comes across is: simple, devout Catholics = bad; sophisticated, doubting Catholics = good.

All this is like the reception that a Catholic culture in Brazil might give to a visiting Mormon missionary, like Card.

Thus this novel is not as good as its predecessor. It’s still very good, and still worth reading, but it is also flawed. Card chose to set his story on a Catholic world; he chose to make religion a prominent theme in the novel; but he either wasn’t able or wasn’t willing to do artistic justice to a Catholic culture.

NEXT: Xenocide.