What an arrogant D-bag. Writing a 5 star review for his own book? It's almost as despicable as some of the homophobic, right wing, religious rants he's been polluting the internet with.
"people have different levels of tolerance for extravagant variations from their experience in everyday life". Or maybe they didn't like the absurd twists the plot took or the inane theme of the book (kids make the best generals because they have more initiative and aren't bothered by their consciences or something - ooo, that's deep, you are a visionary Card). Oh, and writers who don't write in that plain style are "showing off" - yeah, that's what guys like Ray Bradbury or Harlan Ellison are about. After that, he tells us to "disagree with out being disagreeable". Sanctimonious punk.
While I agree that Scott Card's view among many subjects and my own differ greatly (some of the vitriol he spits disgust me), I try to keep both the artist and the work separate. Throughout history, there have been many gifted artists whose personal views or actual acts have turned the stomach, but it doesn't discount the validity of the work or the art. "Ender's Game", in my mind, is a fantastic story and as much as I dislike the writer, I still believe in its importance.
hold on... (kids make the best generals because they have more initiative and aren't bothered by their consciences or something - ooo, that's deep, you are a visionary Card). Oh, and writers who don't write in that plain style are "showing off" The whole premise of "Ender's Game" was that the children commander's didn't "have" to be bothered by their conscience "because" they thought it was a game... not that children "aren't" bothered by conscience. "showing off"...did card say that? Different readers enjoy different texts. Some reader's enjoy different types of texts at different times for different reasons. All subjective. I think it may have been a little bit of a stretch to use children that young over such a short time period. he could have spread-out the novel's timeline, but good story, interesting sic-fi, pushes imagination.
When I read...or tried to read this book, I did not know about Card's personal beliefs. They are disgusting but he is entitled to them. The book is not good. It's boring and ridiculous. In the intro he defends his presentation of highly intelligence children. Really? I have been around quite a few very intelligent kids (including myself). Not realistic at all. There are children that are gifted physically like a Tiger Woods, phenoms in some physical way. That does not mean mental intelligence. I could go on forever but won't. He's not a person I have share any political, religious, or literature ideas with.
Did you read the part where he thought that having to give a "star rating" to his book was silly, but he certainly wasn't going to ding his own work? Seems pretty reasonable to a reasonable person. Nothing in that post is arrogant or self-indulgent; he's just providing clarification.
Book reviewers all have one fatal flaw. They can't read the book for entertainment value because they have to analyze it like they would for English Literature. Just read the book and enjoy it and that is what it is for. Apparently you three did not live the story but stayed outside of it. What would you have done with Isaac Asimov? Called him unrealistic? Or Robert A. Heinlein an unrealistic author? Lighten up and enjoy the stories!!!
If Mr. Card posts a review of his own book, he is breaking the rules. According to the review guidelines, explicitly "not allowed" in a review are "Sentiments by or on behalf of a person or company with a financial interest in the product." That would, of course, include the author.
He could have avoided the awkward situation of how many stars to give his own book had he simply read and followed the review guidelines.