[ab9]

"No book, however good, can survive a hostile reading."

Is that really true? The first Orwell book I read (Homage to Catalonia) was required for a history class -- a class that had previously assigned some truly awful literature. So I was pessimistic and I read it grudgingly at first. But halfway through the book, I realized I loved it.

[nl]

I had the same experience with Watership Down: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watership_Down

I was set to read it when I was 14 or 15 in English. What 14 or 15 yo boy wants to read a book about a rabbit? I was wrong, and loved it, then went and read every other book Richard Adams wrote.

So I guess it's not impossible, but at the same time I was probably broad minded enough to change my mind. Many people won't.

[riffraff]

OT, but I can't thank you enough. I read part of this book as a kid in my school antology, loved it butn ever read all of it. Now that I know it's name I can go and fix that missing part of my life :)

[nl]

Always glad to be of service :)

[puredemo]

How are his other books?

[nl]

Pretty decent from memory - I enjoyed them at the time. But I read them ~15 yo, so YMMV.

[rubergly]

I don't think the claim is that no book can survive any hostile reading, but that you can always approach a book with enough hostility to ruin it.

[ab9]

That's not how I interpret him. Here's the quotation with more context:

"Of course, those who approached Ender's Game skeptically or because they were 'forced' to read it can hardly imagine their response is valid for those who read it as volunteers or with belief: No book, however good, can survive a hostile reading."

[Hawramani]

Maybe Card's definition of a hostile reading is different from yours.

[ab9]

I'm understanding the term "hostile reading" as Card defines it in the above quotation. A hostile reader is one who approaches a book skeptically or is forced to read it (in the sense of being required to read it to complete a class). A hostile reading is what he does.

[sophacles]

Wait... So if someone reads it voluntarily but skeptically it is somehow a hostile reading by the definition you cite? It seems to me you are selectively ignoring the part where he explicitly declares voluntary reading not hostile.

[ab9]

No, Card does not explicitly declare that in the quotation I posted. (Did you mean elsewhere in his review?) He's saying: It's a hostile reading if it's skeptical rather than "with belief". It's also a hostile reading if it's forced rather than voluntary.

You probe his definition by asking, If someone reads it skeptically but voluntarily, does that count as hostile? That's a good question. I don't think we have enough information to answer it, because Card does not state how to weigh skepticism and forcedness against each other.

[chc]

I was actually a hostile reader the first time I read Ender's Game. I was totally turned off by the horrible cover and not very interested in reading it, but it was assigned for school, so I read it and it became one of my favorite books.

[GrantS]

The original Ender's Game series covers are some of the best science fiction art I've ever seen, by an amazing artist named John Harris (examples below). Did your edition have a different cover?

Ender's Game: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_... Speaker for the Dead: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_... Children of the Mind: http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2009/j_harris_...

More art by John Harris here (not my blog): http://colorcubic.com/2010/09/07/the-science-fiction-art-of-...