SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

The first thought that we read from Ender says, "It was a lie, of course, that it wouldn't hurt a bit. But since adults always said it when it was going to hurt, he could count on that statement as an accurate prediction of the future. Sometimes lies were more dependable than the truth." (p.2)

In the same chapter, Peter threatens to kill Ender and Valentine then laughs it off as just a game he was playing. But, Ender thinks he knows the truth; "Peter was a murderer at heart, and nobody knew it but Valentine and Ender." (p. 14)

And later, after being asked what he will do if lying doesn't convince Ender to come to Battle School, Graff exclaims, "Then I'll tell the truth. We're allowed to do that in emergencies. We can't plan for everything."

This theme of the idea of TRUTH being flexible, continues throughout the book. Even the great military leader destined to save mankind, is a master at manipulating his classmates.

What do you think Card is trying to say about humanity's construct of TRUTH?

Truth in wartime definitely is not the same as truth during times of peace. In the real world, it seems to me that the "liars" try to hide that. We're supposed to buy into propaganda and believe that the enemy is bad. The "liars" in Ender's Game are pretty honest liars. I can't tell though, whether they are only honest about their lies to Ender, or if the rest of the world understands as well.

I think truth is up to the person who is speaking. Some people lie just to lie and don't even think twice about it. I think it is harder during war time. I see the news, I know several people in Iraq now, so I hear both sides of war. I don't think they are lies but perceived different by everyone. I do think that people make truth flexible based on what they want to believe.

I think this theme comes down to the fundamental difference between Truth and Fact. Fact is real, concrete, unchangeable. Truth, however, is entirely up to the person telling it. History itself is made up of volumes of truth, not fact. Battle history and war are skewed by the perspective of the victors. We don't get to read the truth of those who are defeated.

Truth is flexible by the very nature of it being dependent on the teller's perspective, experience, and values. What is absolutely true to one person may be entirely false to another. Peter's truth differs from Valentine's, which differs from Ender's. And, Graff truly believes that he will be telling Ender the truth regarding the state of things, though it may turn out differently in the end. At the heart, truth is a belief not a certainty.

I wholeheartedly agree with Sarah.

The truth of the moment may be very different from the truth of reflection when looking back on that same time.

The last three posts are certainly appropriate for this forum, as Card continues to explore multiple views of the events in Ender's Game in sequels like Ender's Shadow and Xenocide. I certainly wouldn't argue with the notion that our views of truth are socially determined. However, that's not really what's at stake here. If someone like Graff presents a version of the "truth" that contradicts what he knows to be "fact" (to borrow Sarah's definitions), then he's a liar. It's that simple. The above Graff quote seems to suggest that he's well aware of the utility of lies and uses them frequently. Of course, his lies may eventually form the "truth" perceived by other characters.

A friend posted this to their twitter feed and I thought it played nicely with this discussion. The author discusses lies we tell children, whether that are good or bad, and why we do so.

http://www.paulgraham.com/lies.html

It seems like many of Graff's lies are to "protect" the children even though the eventual knowledge of his lies may cause them more harm in the end.

I agree with pretty much all of what's been said here, but see it turning into two fairly different questions. One view of lies rests simply with the fact that even our most mundane perceptions are riddled with uncertainties. Quantum physics loves to remind us of this. Thus what we express when one of us tries to tell another (or others) about 'reality' is very much our own construct, and only partly (even with our best efforts) an accurate representation of what actually happened. Thus we lie even when we strive not to.

The other view of lies, and very central to the theme in the book, is far different. Granted we all create worldviews and share them with each other, but this other lie takes this a step further. We extrapolate how a worldview dictates a person's behavior, then by carefully filtering our own expression to that person (or people) we try to dictate their behavior by changing their worldview. This automatically takes a conscious knowledge that one is not telling their own view, simply the view that one believes will cause the desired behavior.

There are good examples of this, but it brings up all sorts of creepy scenarios as well. Personally I tie our own survival to as clear as possible a perception of 'reality' and tend to frown on deliberate fabrications. Then again I do understand that without fabrications of some kind, we are rather helpless to make any sense out of 'reality'. I just don't like it when people are closed off to certain views by the manipulations of others. If such a thing is to take place, and it happens all the time, it must be for very good causes to be condoned by me; not that I have any hope of stopping it if I don't condone it.

Justin,

A well phrased summary of the discussion. But, I gotta disagree with the last statement. By recognizing the fabrication and its manipulative purpose, we have every hope and chance to change it.

J-Lynn,

Now I'm confused. Do you mean you disagree with the whole last paragraph? Your statement doesn't really look like it. It seems to say that people should be challenged to some extent by fabrications. I agree with that. What makes me angry is when they are not challenged because certain views are hidden from them. Granted this does get into some pretty confusing wording, sorry about that.

I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I am just taking a more optimistic view.

"If such a thing is to take place, and it happens all the time, it must be for very good causes to be condoned by me; not that I have any hope of stopping it if I don't condone it."

The statement is a little dark for me. I have to believe that we do have a hope of stopping "it" if we think it is wrong. Some may say it is naive, but I still believe that an individual can make a difference.

Thanks, J-Lynn. That both makes sense and I agree. I was kind of trying to add a disclaimer to my previous statement - it seemed to me to suggest that I could dictate the flow of information for everyone. I was just saying that I can't stop lying all the time. I certainly have at times, and probably will continue to, as have, do, and will many others. I like and share your optimism, I don't think it's naive.

Good. The world needs a little more optimism. Even if it is tempered in reality.