About a week ago I made a post asking whether I should read Neuromancer or Ender's Game. Everyone said that Neuromancer was good and Ender was bad. However, I read the first ~50 pages of both, and Neuromancer is boring as hell, but Ender's Game is quite good. Did I get memed?
less popular = better
even when it's not true
>>8282467
You got memed famalam.
Neuromancer is dated and terrible. I would only recommend it to those specifically looking for cyberpunk.
I haven't read Ender's Game yet.
Ender's Game is a pretty excellent romp, and the ending is honestly one of my favorites OAT or at least, it was a decade ago), but imo its successors are unfortunately subpar (save perhaps Ender's Shadow).
Neuromancer is definitely aged and maybe crucial to your resume, but I certainly wouldn't reread it solely for enjoyment.
You definitely got memed senpai
![trenchcoat[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/GtBwbuZ.png "trenchcoat[1].png")
>Ender's Game is a pretty excellent romp
>>8282681
No, I made my own post
>>8282605
>its successors are subpar
I never use this word, but . . . objectively wrong. Ender's Game is a hell of a pageturner. Exhilarating plot and all that. But that's it. What it has in action, suspense, and thrills, it severely lacks in real substance. The sequels, especially the second and third books, are far better in their exploration of philosophical and ethical questions and dilemmas. Xenocide is easily the most engrossing of the original sequence, followed by Speaker for the Dead.
>>8282712
Can you rank the books? I'd like to see that.
>>8282714
I only read the four of the original sequence, but for me those would go 3>2>1>4. I already gave an idea of what I think of 3, 2, and 1. As for 4, I feel like it has some good things going on, still a bit more substance than 1, but I also feel like a lot of it is made up of predictable and even corny ways of winding up the series and tying together loose ends.
>>8282726
>You think the original lacked susbtance?
Absolutely. What substance is there? I mean sure, the ending raises the question of the morality of what they did to Ender and, through him, the buggers, but that's just what sets up the next three books. Besides that, it's just all action. It has been a good while since I read them, too, something like seven years, but that's how I remember it, anyway.
>>8282467
Snow Crash > Both
>>8282758
I think that Ender's relationship with Peter is interesting and has substance. Also there is the morality of wiping out another race. I'd say it has a decent amount of substance.
>>8282801
Nah
>>8282829
>Also there is the morality of wiping out another race. I'd say it has a decent amount of substance.
This is what I referred to as what happens at the end, what is done to Ender and, through him, the buggers. But this only comes up at the end, and, as I said, really just sets the up the much deeper exploration of that and related issues in the sequels. Ender's Game just barelt scratches the surface where Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide take it much further.
>Ender's relationship with Peter
I don't reallt remember too much about that. Can you refresh my memory?
Either way, to suggest that Ender's Game has nearly the depth of the following two books is, to me, simply ludicrous.
>>8282942
I haven't read the others, I'm just saying it has a good amount of depth imho. Basically Peter is horrible to Ender, so a lot of the choices Ender makes in the book are to distance himself from his brother. I like it a lot.
>>8282467
I enjoyed Ender's Game, haven't read Neuromancer.
If you end up finishing Ender's Game, for the love of god do not read Speaker for the Dead. It's awful, I would not call it a successor, it's a completely different story.
