ab9

Thanks. I really enjoy what I've read so far.

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.

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.

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."

"No book, however good, can survive a hostile reading."

Is that really true? The first Orwell book I read (Homage to Catalonia) was required for a history class -- a class that had previously assigned some truly awful literature. So I was pessimistic and I read it grudgingly at first. But halfway through the book, I realized I loved it.

NearlyFreeSpeech.NET, a popular web host, has recommended this for years.

http://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/section/domainnameservice/ba...

Because that's the context of the article and HN users might want to know that. It's not clear in the original title.

Yes, I mentioned the Taliban simply because that's what I had read about. I don't know much about Al Qaeda, so I couldn't say much about that group in particular. I was not conflating the two groups; rather, I was using the Taliban as an example to make a broad point about Pakistan: that it is not simply "America's ally in the war on terror." It's also a quasi-ally of the Taliban (and Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba, and other terrorist groups). "It's complicated," as they say.

The relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban is also complicated, and I'm probably in the dark as much as you are. My understanding is that they've never seen eye-to-eye, but apparently bin Laden was responsible for bringing the groups closer together. Al Qaeda has often resided in Taliban territory, with the latter's permission and protection.

"Just amazing - harbored by friends in the Pakistani military for years while they received billions in aid from the US."

This is completely normal, and it's long been the case for the Taliban too. The Taliban operate, and sometimes govern, fearlessly and openly in parts of Pakistan. This includes proper towns and city districts, not just remote regions in the mountains. The old guard of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence is largely pro-Taliban and provides political protection, funding, supplies, training, etc. Other parts of the Pakistani government help them too.

It's interesting that Wilson says "Etsy" doesn't mean anything. I assumed it was a phoneticization of "etc.".