Hacker News Reader

Comment by rubergly | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com