The Innocent Killer
Ender Wiggin, a genocidal killer we somehow feel sympathy for, but is our sympathy justified? In an essay by John Kessel, titled “Creating the Innocent Killer”, Kessel discussed this matter and concludes that we should not feel sympathy for him as he is a murderer. He killed two people as well as the entire population of a foreign species, yet still labeled innocent. I agree with Kessel’s conclusion, because although he didn’t know he was committing genocide at the time he planned on doing so in the future, he was always unnecessarily violent but wasn’t punished for it, and his intentions don’t change his actions.
To summarize Kessel’s essay, “Creating the Innocent Killer”, Kessel felt no sympathy for Ender. Kessel felt as if the author of Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card, was manipulating us as the reader to feel bad for someone who doesn’t deserve it. Kessel believes that yes, Ender didn’t intend to do all of these awful things, but that doesn’t change the fact that he still did them. Ender most definitely was not innocent, nor did he deserve to be pitied. Kessel thought that Ender deserved punishment for his murders, and I couldn't agree more with Kessel’s opinion. One reason why I agree with …show more content…
Yes, Ender was only intending to defend himself and “to win this (fight) now, and for all time,”(7) but that doesn’t change the fact that he killed people. As stated in a critical essay by Susanne Lindeberg, titled “The Murdering Hero”, Ender “both is and is not a hero”. Yes, he has good intentions, but that does not justify his horrible actions. As said in a critical theme analysis of Ender’s Game, the line that separates good and evil “becomes less and less distinct as the novel goes on,” in an attempt to hide that Ender isn’t as good as he is portrayed to be. He does not deserve the sympathy he gets just because he “didn’t want to kill”(221), but was driven to
Ender Wiggin, a genocidal killer we somehow feel sympathy for, but is our sympathy justified? In an essay by John Kessel, titled “Creating the Innocent Killer”, Kessel discussed this matter and concludes that we should not feel sympathy for him as he is a murderer. He killed two people as well as the entire population of a foreign species, yet still labeled innocent. I agree with Kessel’s conclusion, because although he didn’t know he was committing genocide at the time he planned on doing so in the future, he was always unnecessarily violent but wasn’t punished for it, and his intentions don’t change his actions.
To summarize Kessel’s essay, “Creating the Innocent Killer”, Kessel felt no sympathy for Ender. Kessel felt as if the author of Ender’s Game, Orson Scott Card, was manipulating us as the reader to feel bad for someone who doesn’t deserve it. Kessel believes that yes, Ender didn’t intend to do all of these awful things, but that doesn’t change the fact that he still did them. Ender most definitely was not innocent, nor did he deserve to be pitied. Kessel thought that Ender deserved punishment for his murders, and I couldn't agree more with Kessel’s opinion. One reason why I agree with …show more content…
Yes, Ender was only intending to defend himself and “to win this (fight) now, and for all time,”(7) but that doesn’t change the fact that he killed people. As stated in a critical essay by Susanne Lindeberg, titled “The Murdering Hero”, Ender “both is and is not a hero”. Yes, he has good intentions, but that does not justify his horrible actions. As said in a critical theme analysis of Ender’s Game, the line that separates good and evil “becomes less and less distinct as the novel goes on,” in an attempt to hide that Ender isn’t as good as he is portrayed to be. He does not deserve the sympathy he gets just because he “didn’t want to kill”(221), but was driven to