Ender's Game

I recently finished reading Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card.  It was a science-fiction book about a boy named Ender Wiggin.  He is incredibly smart, and is recruited by the currently desperate military to go into training at age six.  The military trains him harshly from this young age, and does not make him aware of what he is doing, but only because they terribly need him, and he may be the last hope to save everyone.  

I thought that one of the issues in this book was how Ender was robbed of his childhood, by being taken away from his home and put into intense training at age six.  This was done by the government, but only because he was a genius, and they needed him to save everybody.  Of course, at the age of six Ender did not actually know about the life he was going into, and did not really have a say in what was being done to him.  Is it right to take a child away from their home and put them into training, when they are at an age so young that they do not know what is happening to them?  I think that this really depends on the situation, and how it will end up affecting other people and the world in general.  For example, in the situation in Ender’s Game, if Ender had not been taken away and put into training, many or possibly all people would have died.  His life was completely changed, but it was for the benefit of every other person.  I do not think that there would ever actually be a situation where the fate of everyone depended on one boy.  How important must the situation be for it to be justifiable to take away someone’s childhood to save others?  I think it could be far less important than saving the world for it to be justifiable to take away much of someone’s life.  

Another issue main issue in Ender’s Game, involved the war that Ender has been trained to be in.  There is another species, and this other species is just as evolved and intelligent as humans are, but this species is very different from humans.  Because neither species can understand each other, the two species have set out to destroy each other.  Neither wants to destroy another species, but both are convinced that the other must not be as developed as they themselves are because they can not communicate, and therefore understand the each other.  I think this introduces a bigger issue of how they value themselves more than the other not only because they want to survive, but because they can not understand each other.  Just because you yourself cannot understand something, does not mean it is stupid and worthless.  They also think that whoever does not kill the other, will probably be killed.  At the time of the book, the humans are probably going to all die and lose, but they are desperately trying to save themselves.  Ender is the only person smart enough to save everyone, but they know that he is far too kind to eliminate another species.  Because of this difficult situation, the military people tell Ender that he is just going through a training simulation while he is actually fighting the battles.  On the final one, his instructors do not expect him to ever be smart enough to beat the other species and kill them all.  His instructors do not think he is completely capable, and are only aiming for him to severely hurt them, and send the message that they should stop attacking.  Because Ender is under the impression that this is just a simulation, he wants to win, and he is completely smart enough to win this battle; Ender never loses.  He ends up killing the species, and destroying their planet.  All of the military people are overjoyed, but this is also when Ender finds out what he has really been doing.  He would never intend to kill a species completely.  This made me wonder whether Ender is responsible for his actions, or whether he is not because he was unaware and under the control of the military throughout the whole experience.  

In conclusion, I loved reading Ender’s Game, by Orson Scott Card, and although it is a science-fiction book with unrealistic situations, I could relate it back to realistic ideas and questions.  I enjoyed reading it and am definitely looking forward to reading the sequel.  

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas

I recently finished reading The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, by John Boyne.  It’s a great book about a young boy, Bruno, during the Holocaust.  Bruno’s father is an important man in the German army during World War II.  Bruno lives and his family live in Berlin, until they are told by Hitler that Bruno’s father must move out into the countryside to run a concentration camp.  Bruno knows none of this though.  He knows who his father works for, and who asked their family to leave Berlin, but he has know idea what his father actually does, or why his family has to move for his father’s job.  Bruno hates living in their new home and longs for Berlin, until he meets a young boy his age.  Shmuel is very similar to Bruno in many ways, except that they are in completely different situations.  Bruno meets Shmuel after he decides to go exploring one day.  They meet up almost everyday for the whole time Bruno is there, and talk about all sorts of things.  They only talk because there is a large fence that separates Bruno and Shmuel.  On the day scheduled for Bruno’s departure to Berlin, Bruno becomes a little too curious and decides to go over to Shmuel’s side of the fence.  He does not like what he finds there, but unfortunately, he never has the chance to leave.  

An aspect of the book that I found very interesting was the perspectives.  For most of the book, you only get Bruno’s perspective, and some of Shmuel’s perspective.  They are oblivious to everything that is actually going on around them; especially Bruno.  When the two boys first meet they discover, among other things, that they have the exact same birthday, and that they were both forced to move to their current locations on short notice, against their will.  Bruno talks about how terrible it was to have to move to a house with two stories as opposed to five, and how he did not even have time to say goodbye to his three best friends for life.  Shmuel says that soldiers forced them out of their house, took away everything they had, forced them to wear little stars, and then they moved to the camp.  Neither boy knows the full extent of what is going on, but Shmuel at least realizes that he and Bruno are not in the same situation, despite what Bruno thinks.  Bruno argues that all soldiers must be good (because his father is in the army,) and thinks that they are living at a house called Out-With in the German countryside, as opposed to Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland.  I think that Bruno’s obliviousness to the actual situation, and wrongful belief that his situation is practically identical Shmuel’s highlight something that the author is saying.  This is that the two boys actually are very similar, so why are they in such different situations?  Why is Shmuel on one side of the fence and Bruno on the other?  

I think that one of the main ideas of The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, by John Boyne, is that Bruno’s father only realizes what is he is doing after it happens to his own son.  Bruno’s father is a very important man in the World War II German army, but up to the point where he realizes what happens to his son, if he had been asked what he was doing in his work, he probably would have only said that he was serving Germany.  He was serving Germany by running Auschwitz (or a part of it, the book doesn’t say whether or not it is the whole place that Bruno’s dad is in control of.)  There is no definite number of total people who died at Auschwitz, but at least 1.1 million people were gassed to death there (according to PBS).  I do not think that Bruno’s father ever stops to think what serving the German army really means.  I do not think that it is right to blindly serve your country only because it is your country; independently, you should believe in what you are fighting for.  When Bruno finally decides to go over to Shmuel’s side of the fence, Bruno and Shmuel happen to be rounded up, and sent into a gas chamber.  Bruno’s family never found out what happened to Bruno, until one day when Bruno’s father came across a pile of Bruno’s clothing stashed next to the fence.  His father figures things out pretty quickly, and I think that that is when he thinks about what he is doing.  He realizes how absolutely terrible it is, because he lost his own son.  He also probably feels very guilty, his son was killed in a gas chamber run by him, he might have even organized for that very group to be rounded up and killed that day.  He could have just told Bruno what he organized on the other side of the fence, but it would be too bad to tell him.  I think it is horribly ironic that Bruno dies at his dad’s concentration camp, and that Bruno was being taught by his father and personal tutor to support the Nazis the whole time he was living at “Out-With”, and then is gassed to death.    

In conclusion, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, by John Boyne was a great book, that was also very sad.  I thought that the perspectives in the book were interesting; the author subtly explained what was actually going on, while still making it believable that it was coming from a young boy with no real knowledge of the situation.  I also thought that a main part of the book was how Bruno’s father did not realize how wrong what he was doing was, until his own son died as a result of it.  

Never Let Me Go

     I am close to finishing the book Never Let Me Go right now.  I am enjoying it although it is pretty weird, and interesting.  The author tells you very little about what is actually going on in the book, although recently I have had some ideas on what I think might be happening.  

     For their whole lives, Kathy, Ruth, Tommy, and other people like them have been raised separate from society.  They also get into trouble if they get seriously hurt, and the one normal person they ever come in contact with is Madame, and she is afraid of them, but probably only because she pities them so much and does not even want to think about their situation.  As they get older, they are aloud to leave the facilities they have been living in and go into the world.  Only for day trips though.  While on these types of excursions, they are constantly searching for their "identicals", or people who are just like them.  As they get older, they become donors, and it is implied that they are "donating" their body parts.  They donate there body parts until they are no longer strong enough to live, and they themselves die.  Based on this information, I have come to the conclusion that the three main characters, and the people like them that they have grown up with, are all clones of people out in the real world, and have been raised for their whole lives only to die by donating body parts to their clone.  I think this is very interesting, as is the way that these people view this.  

     None of the main characters really know what is going on with the "donations".  Two of then are in the process right now, and Kathy is in a sort of temporary overseer job.  They have never been taught about the process, and they see it as just a normal part of life.  they have not been taught directly, but their teachers have just implied for their entire lives that they would not die of natural causes, or go and have a life.  As opposed to feeling unfortunate because of this whole lifestyle altogether, their ignorance causes them to be oblivious to anything going on outside.  Their teachers look down upon anyone who asks questions, or doubts anything because they are probably afraid of the definite revolt which would occur if these people knew exactly what was happening to them.  

     This important issue in the book made me think about whether or not it is right to raise a person, just to die eventually to keep another person alive.  I think that is why people in the book like Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy are raised in a boarding school, away from any parents.  The only real connections they have with anyone are with their friends, who know only as much as they do.  This prevents anyone who could possibly be giving them up from feeling any guilt, as well as preventing a revolt in those who are being sacrificed.  Unfortunately, I never read the book My Sister's Keeper, but I saw the movie, and I think the two issues are relatively similar, but the circumstances are different.  In that story, the sister knows that for herself to survive her cancer, her sister must sacrifice many things in her life; in Never Let Me Go, I am pretty sure that the normal people do not know that they are receiving these body parts from perfectly healthy people, who would have long lives ahead of them, if they did not have to "donate".  In My Sister's Keeper, the girl has been raised by her parents, and is as much a part of the family as the sister with cancer.  In my book, all of the characters have been raised in boarding school, where the teachers do not know enough to try and protect the kids from their horrible futures.  Finally, in My Sister's Keeper, the girl knows how great life can be, and what she would be sacrificing.  In my book, the characters have lived in isolated communities for their entire lives, up until they begin the "donation" process, and are never given the chance to really experience life.  Because of the different circumstances in these two similar situations, the two stories turn out very differently.  Many factors can interfere with what I think and change my opinion, but in most situations, I think that a person should not have to sacrifice their life for another without agreeing to it.  This includes giving the person a chance to live first, and letting them experience how great life can be before making the decision.   

     In conclusion, I am loving reading this book, and this is only my biggest idea for what the book is about, it could be something completely different.  

Never Let Me Go

I am currently in the middle of reading Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro.  It is a great book so far, but the author intentionally reveals almost nothing about the society the main characters are living in.  The main characters are Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy, and the book is told from Kathy’s perspective.  They all went to some type of special school together, and now they are with other students from schools all over England, all living together.  Their relationships, and culture is completely normal, but something is different about them, and this school they went to.  I think the author is implying that they have been raised for some special purpose, but I don’t really know anything about that yet.  One thing about the book that I think is interesting is how the students of this school Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy attended all sense that they are different, although they do not know why, and it really causes them to stick together.  Other people living with them now know about where these kids were from, and they treat them differently, like they somehow were incredibly lucky, but the people who actually know their purpose are afraid of them.  I also think that the relationships and personalities of the three main characters are interesting.  

First of all, Ruth loves to be in charge, but she is constantly afraid that someone will see how fake she often is.  Ruth and Tommy are together, and Ruth’s best friend is Kathy.  With them, she has a completely different personality.  She talks to them, and they know everything about her.  Ruth makes things up all the time to try and fit in with kids that might be older than her, so if she makes something up, or starts lying about her life, she relies on and trusts Kathy and Tommy not to say anything.  I think that Ruth desperately wants to be a normal person in the outside world, and even just to fit in in their little community.  I think she makes things up all the time because she really believes them eventually.  This could also be part of why Kathy and Tommy never say anything about all of Ruth’s fantasies, because they realize that it is more personal and she is not always doing it to convince others, but to convince herself as well.  

I think that the book is purposely told from the point of view of Kathy, because she does not really know anything more about her situation than the reader.  These people know that they are different, but none of them ever wonder or question why.  At the different school they were at, the teachers sort of gave them the sense that it was off limits, and know at this new place they are afraid to ask questions because they do not want others to know how little they know.  

In conclusion, although I do not know that much about this book, it is really great so far, and I can not wait to find out about everything in the end.