Review is strewn with ignorance and bias
The review is based off of ignorance and a bias against children. Just because you cannot imagine having an extremely intelligent and capable leader who happens to be young doesn't mean that someone else will be unable to recognize the children's talents and utilize them successfully. Particularly if that someone else is a leader that is desperate for power. And they have even a slight trace of intelligence.
You made the comment that the kids were supposed to be unique because of Battle School training. That is a half-truth; the kids were special from the beginning, a group of the most intelligent children that could be found on Earth. It was Battle School that refined that uniqueness into something useful.
You also said that the war they engaged in was unlike any war that humankind had fought before. Let's disregard the fact that Ender's Game and Shadow covered the 3rd of such a war and get to the meat of the argument. For whatever reason I am expected to think, as you do, that this being the first such war has a bearing on whether or not I can accept that the children win it.
You go on to ask whether these children could be effective strategists. It is at this point in the review that I begin to question whether or not you even read Ender's Game or Ender's Shadow, because both of the books glaringly imply a resounding, absolute ''Yes, they can.'' They were already expert strategists by the time Ender's Game drew to a close.
Finally, your arguments against an educated Achilles show more of your ignorance of the events in Ender's Shadow. Recall that Achilles was sent to school for nearly a year before being sent to Battle School. Being as intelligent as most Battle School soldiers and certainly more passionate than any of them, even a few weeks at a school would have given him all the education he presented in Shadow of the Hegemon.
Your opinions and your ignorance get in the way of the review.
As to your reply to tp; ludicrous. A tactician trained in space maneuvers that has to worry about beating enemies that can attack from every angle and keeps track of his troops in a 3-dimensional rather than a 2-dimensional space would find land war extremely easy. But your reply reveals a fundamental flaw in your logic; you think that tacticians are only as useful as their knowledge or experience. Again, this is only a half-truth. A good tactician has the potential to be a good tactician no matter what the setting is. Tactics and strategies are more a mindset than a knowledge bank. The only knowledge a good tactician needs is knowledge of his own troops and their capabilities. It helps, but is not necessary, to know your enemies as well. In Shadow of the Hegemon the children are given this information, which is more than enough to win for a brilliant and creative mind.
Ogaruu: experience does not make one smart. Being smart makes one smart. No amount of experience promotes creativity, intelligence, leadership, or the drive to win, which are 4 of the 5 key attributes (the last being personal skill) of a good tactician. Furthermore, your claim that experience makes one adaptable is ridiculous. Experience hampers adaptability more than promotes it. When's the last time your grandfather looked at a computer or some other new, complex invention and said ''Hey, this will make my life easier. How do I use it?''
| Posted on Wednesday, 01 April 2009 at 14:53 GMT [Reply to this] [Permalink]|