I'm finishing up Ender's Game. It was....ok. To be honest my gut tells me to call it clumsy objectivist nonsense. There's a lot of small issues. He decided to use the contemporary 1985 world for the setting which I think is a bad idea when writing science fiction because it inevitably forces your audience to view it in that time and space and ruins the mystery and imagination.
He writes as though the Warsaw Pact is still a major power and of course we know it's not which makes the setting quaint rather than interesting, although it's funny that he hints that it falls apart, which isn't some Nostradamus shit. The Baltic states were already fighting to get out.
Ender is an objectivist messiah, that whole "Oh if only someone smarter than everyone else was given total power they save us all." UUUUUUGGGH. Yeah he voted for Trump btw.
The stuff with his sister and brother being genius's who become internet personalities who save the world has some merit, but again it ends up being quaint because we deal with that kind shit today and we've learned the internet ended up just being a cesspool where no one can agree on anything. Of course he couldn't know that rather that internet forums evolving, they devolved into soundbyte shit like tiktok and twitter. Could someone possibly unite large groups on the internet with enough power to create world peace? Sure idk whatever.
I was let down fighting out that Ender's an actual murderer and he downplayed the beatdown he gave the bullies in his version of events. He is a sociopath, whether the book acknowledges it or not.
That said, though it was fine. I liked a lot of the idea's, but I think once you realize that book has an agenda it gets pretty grating.