The essay doesn't sit right with me to be honest. The author seems to attribute no small amount of intentional malice on Card's part, which their talk of manipu

The essay doesn't sit right with me to be honest. The author seems to attribute no small amount of intentional malice on Card's part, which their talk of manipulation of the readers, and whatnot. Malice which, at least I believe, isn't truly present (at least in this; OCS has some pretty outlandish believes). It is not "attributing malice" to suggest an author knows what they are doing. A good writer crafts their words carefully, to send the message they wish to impart, and evoke a response in the reader, whatever that might be. This is the foundation of writing itself, and the foundation of literary criticism is the analysis of what that message might be. The essay refers to another by Radford, which ends with this note: "To this day, the most common response by Card fans to my essay is that they just don't see it. My goodness gracious, why should anyone imagine that hundreds of pages of meditation on genocide and forgiveness wasn't just pure science fiction, with nothing to say about the twentieth century or its most notorious genocide? To which I can only shrug and say, Hmm-kay, I start with the assumption that the guy is not a complete idiot and that he knows what he's doing and that he actually had something to say. I don't agree with what he had to say, but he did have something to say. The argument that he's an oblivious airhead is not particularly flattering to either you as a fan or Card as an author. If that's your argument, fine, but you'll have to forgive me if I think it's pathetic." To say the author has no intentions is, for a start, an interesting tack to take in response to an evaluation of Card's own intention-based model of morality, but also potentially takes no more charitable view of Card than that of the essayist.