The Sword and Laser discussion
I need to talk about OSC
Just as proof of Sarah's concept: I have actually gone and borrowed Ender's game from a friend now. Why? Well I am more of a Fantasy guy so I haven't read any OSC and any political views that he has made publicly has slipped me by. After reading this thread, I am interested in knowing all about OSC's work. I want to see for myself if his real life opinions are apparent in his writing.
So just by having a conversation about him, someone that would probably have never read his work, is now going to read it.
By advocating abstinence, interest is sparked.
OSC sounds like a jerk. We should not be making his opinions even more public. Rather let them go by in relative obscurity.
Wow. You guys really went for it. A great discussion. I’m glad we stuck mostly to the topic of why we feel certain actions are acceptable and stayed off the main controversy. Thanks to everyone for that.I think that you can divorce an artist’s work from the artist, but it requires some distance. Ender’s Game is one of these. Ender’s Game was required reading when I was in high school, and there’s a reason for that. It’s important not only because of its quality but because of how many people, like me, were inspired and shaped by it.
I think that entities like a film, involve too many people and forces to really trace it back to direct support of the author. I didn’t think V for Vendetta helped Alan Moore (cause I would’ve seen it twice if it did), and Dan Brown didn’t get rich on the movies made on his book. He got rich when they were optioned. That is to say the author gets his money upfront. (Also I looked it up and made sure he wasn’t getting screenwriter credit) So there are plenty of people and things that are helped by me seeing this movie and there’s no real direct support of Card made by seeing the movie, beyond some expression that his book is still a popular thing. I like Ender’s Game. You know something about someone that can say that. I have a connection with other people that like Ender’s Game.
I think that books are something very different from the machine involved in creating a film. I’m done buying things directly created by OSC. I don’t think the film really counts as one of those.
On top of that I agree with Sarah. There are things that we buy all the time that just involve too many people. It’s too hard to, and ultimately unfair to, blanket something created by many with unrelated political views of someone involved in its creation, even if that person is involved in its origin. I felt the same way about Shadow Complex, a game made on the premise of one of OSC’s books. I want to encourage the company that made that game (cause it was a great game), and it was removed from OSCs direct influence enough that I could divorce them.
One of the points brought up in this discussion, spoke to the idea that we can somehow equate people not buying OSC stuff to the fight against bigotry and intolerance. I have to say I very much disagree with this. I’m not buying OSC stuff because I don’t want that guy putting his ideas in my head anymore. The decision exists only at the personal level. I don’t think that the current controversy does anything except actually encourage people to find out more about OSC and the controversy. It does not do anything to actually effect the outcome of that conflict. You should not think that you are helping the fight against bigotry by NOT doing something. Boycotts are only an expression of the size of active members in a movement and not an action by that movement. It’s a threat and not an action. Making the controversy about OSC, doesn’t help the people that are actually effected by his views, and his attempts to spend money to create laws reflecting those views. The argument can’t be the man, because he is a distraction to the actions of himself and those who share his ideas. The idea can’t be defeated. Bigotry exists. Forever. We can only be vigilant in the defense of people.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts and opinions.
I love Orson Scott Card, but I feel like since Shadow of the Giant he has just been writing for the masses. So many people that I talk to who loves Ender's Game including me knows the movie is going to be a piece of crap.
I agree with most of his political views.
You have to look at the context of his view on gays, especially when and where he made the speech. It was back in 1990, where homosexuality was not as accepted as today. His audience and him was Mormons, where their religions belief is that homosexuality is evil.
Sorry but I believe that bigotry and hate can be defeated. It just takes time. In 100 years no one will think that women are less than men, that race makes us powerful. Hell even if it takes 200 years it will still happen. I have hope for that.
Kevin wrote: "You have to look at the context of his view on gays, especially when and where he made the speech. It was back in 1990, where homosexuality was not as accepted as today. His audience and him was Mo..."Eh I read all about how it was written for mormons and how its not his true feelings but to be honest to me it feels like a "saving face" speech. A copout. It might not be and he might be telling the truth but I'm not feeling it
The reason I think that Ender's Game is a good book because it has so much to offer where everyone can look at the book in a different way, and would be right.
I would not support him. Not only has he gone down in quality as a writer, but he's going to take the money and give it directly to groups who want to take away the right's of gay people.I don't think this is something we should put up with anymore.
I have never read Enders Game though I've had it on my must-read list for ages. After I stumbled across OSC's column a while ago, I decided never to read any of his work.
Yes, I can like art by artists whose opinions differ from mine. If they go around trumpeting them out to the world, in such a ridiculous fashion even, I get to the point where I can't enjoy this art anymore. This pretty much goes for every artist who feels the need to be racist, homo-phobic, misogynic, etc. This has nothing to do with "having an opinion" but simply with the fact that their opinion hurts people. And I cannot support that.
It's everyone's decision but I am with Bryek on this one. And nobody here should tell me how to think or feel about it.
As for the topic: I won't watch the movie either. Even if I could watch it for free or pirate it or whatever, it's not gonna happen.
Yes, I can like art by artists whose opinions differ from mine. If they go around trumpeting them out to the world, in such a ridiculous fashion even, I get to the point where I can't enjoy this art anymore. This pretty much goes for every artist who feels the need to be racist, homo-phobic, misogynic, etc. This has nothing to do with "having an opinion" but simply with the fact that their opinion hurts people. And I cannot support that.
It's everyone's decision but I am with Bryek on this one. And nobody here should tell me how to think or feel about it.
As for the topic: I won't watch the movie either. Even if I could watch it for free or pirate it or whatever, it's not gonna happen.
This becomes such an easier discussion when we keep in mind that there's no longer any reason to read Card's newer writing, regardess of politics, because the quality has simply gone to hell in a handbasket. A pity, since when he was at the top of his form, it was exquisite.
Kevin wrote: "You have to look at the context of his view on gays, especially when and where he made the speech. It was back in 1990, where homosexuality was not as accepted as today. His audience and him was Mo..."Card has made many, many more statements against homosexuality than a single speech in 1990. In 2008 he argued that if the government ever grants full equality to homosexuals, the people should violently overthrow the government. That same year he published a novella that equated homosexuality with pedophilia -- something we know he believes, because he made the same claim in a 2004 article. He said, just last year, that gay marriage is a left-wing plot to persecute the religious since their children will find out they're being raised by bigots, and it'll make it harder to persecute the transgendered and force them into "traditional" gender typology.
This is not a guy who said a single stupid thing twenty years ago -- this is a man who makes a habit of repeating these things every chance he gets.
Yes, he's kind of... not very nice when it comes to this topic. But, there's Neil Gaiman and JK Rowling to consider. It's not like he's the only writer. His books and columns FRUSTRATE me.
Can't say I know much about the opinions of Gaiman or rowling
Synesthesia wrote: "Yes, he's kind of... not very nice when it comes to this topic. But, there's Neil Gaiman and JK Rowling to consider. It's not like he's the only writer. His books and columns FRUSTRATE me."Is Neil Gaiman opposed to gay marriage? I'd be shocked by that, considering he was on the forefront of including gay characters in graphic novels!
For me, at the end of the day, I do not feel good when I support OSC by purchasing or even reading for free his work. Therefore, I will not read his books, much less purchase them and I will certainly not go see his movie.As a matter of context, when I read Ender's Game some (I don't know...) 20 years ago...I loved it. Now, I can't even look at it on the shelf in the bookstore any more because I know how much he hates people like me. It's not simple disagreement with me politically, but hate.
Thank you Bryek for your wise words. You make excellent arguments and I agree entirely.
(And thanks also to your country for allowing me to marry 10 years ago this coming August!)
Bryek wrote: "I remember when I was a kid how easily my self worth was shattered by off hand opinions of my family, friends and those I idolized. Its amazing how easy it is to think you are worthless on the opinions of those who matter to you (authors included).."This! So very much this!!! Thank you Bryek.
Kevin wrote: "You have to look at the context of his view on gays, especially when and where he made the speech. It was back in 1990, where homosexuality was not as accepted as today. His audience and him was Mo..."The audience does not make it okay. Hate is hate is hate.
No Neil Gaiman to my knowledge is not against gay marriage. I just enjoy reading him and JKR so much more than OSC who just frustrates me with his using characters to nag the reader about marriage and babies
I try to but it just stresses me out. It's just gay people getting married. There's so many WORSE things that ruin families so why focus on gays? This makes no sense. If they really cared about families, they'd stop child abuse and stop domestic violence, not just pick on gays all day.
Synesthesia wrote: "No Neil Gaiman to my knowledge is not against gay marriage. I just enjoy reading him and JKR so much more than OSC who just frustrates me with his using characters to nag the reader about marriage ..."Ooops! Sorry, I completely misunderstood what you had said before.
I can usually separate someones art from their personal beliefs but even then I will make an effort not to support them. I would never buy anything from OSC unless it's from a second hand or charity shop. As for Enders Game, I couldn't care less about the movie so I will wait to rent it on DVD. Sure it's a decent book, but in my opinion it's WAY overrated. The movie is probably going to be Harry Potter in space anyhow :)
In my case, I might not like the person, but I can still like their work. It all boils down to choice. He writes both fiction and non-fiction and if you don't like his concrete views on society but also like his writing, you don't have to read his non-fiction. Not saying you have to read his fiction if the controversy surrounding him taints your enjoyment of his fiction though. That's how I operate. While he can, and does, line character arcs with his own beliefs in some way shape or form, the story arcs (usually) aren't completely steeped in his beliefs. And either way, with the film, it's someone else's interpretation of his work. So it might be more palatable than reading OSC's work for some people.
P. Aaron wrote: "This becomes such an easier discussion when we keep in mind that there's no longer any reason to read Card's newer writing, regardess of politics, because the quality has simply gone to hell in a h..."I totally agree, it exactly how I feel about Orson Scott Card now. You basically took the words right out of my mouth.
Rick wrote: "I actually don't think this is a hard dilemma. If an issue is really important to you and the creator of some work has a stance on that issue that's odious to you, you don't support them. Period. You don't try to weasel out of it, you keep to your principles. "Absolutely. I won't support Card's bigotry.
Besides, Ender's Game pretty much sucks. The short story is so much better, because the ending isn't telegraphed and there's none of the extraneous verbiage that bogs down the novel.
Sarah wrote: "I'm saying if you are going to speak up, actually DO it, and don't make an ugly thing even uglier by politicizing something that has nothing to do with why you are actually angry. "Everything you said contradicts itself. How is this not speaking up? Are we only allowed to speak up in a manner YOU approve? Can you hear yourself?
Iam outsider in this subject which is (as I understand) closely related to political complexities in the U.S.But in general as an art historian I would like to say:
Artists don't have to be good, decent people. On the contrary most of them have crazy political ideas, horrible personalities and terrible lifes. In my area of work, I read about wife beaters, child molesters, super racists, zaelots, murderers, traitors, thieves, pimps, maniacs etc. etc. And most of those people were the greatest masters of the world art history. It is only important if their artwork is any good. Orson Scott Card can be the head of the Tea Party if he want; as long as he is a good writer. And he surely is...
No.He really isn't.
Lecturing the reader doesn't make you a good writer. His characters are also flat and 2 dimensional too.
@rasnac - no one is saying that artists have to be good people. The discussion is about whether or not to support them if you feel their opinions are repugnant to you. Someone can certainly choose to be a homophobic bigot as Card has... but if that stance is repugnant to me then I need to either a) decide that I won't give money to someone who will use it to promote what I feel is hate and prejudice or
b) admit I'm a hypocrite who doesn't really have the guts to back my moral stance up by not seeing a movie/reading a book/etc.
Someone above raised the point of whether we should feel obligated to vet each of the artists that we enjoy. This is a red herring argument. Obviously the answer to that is no, but it's also irrelevant to the issue at hand which is what to do once you do become aware that an artist's stance on an issue is one that you feel is very wrong.
PS: With books there is, of course, an option that lets you read a book without providing financial support to the author - buy a used copy. If someone is really interested in Ender's Game but doesn't want to support Card, that's what I'd recommend. It's an interesting book and one that I enjoyed when I read it (before I became aware of Card's opinions).
Rasnac wrote: "Artists don't have to be good, decent people. On the contrary most of them have crazy political ideas, horrible personalities and terrible lifes. In my area of work, I read about wife beaters, child molesters, super racists, zaelots, murderers, traitors, thieves, pimps, maniacs etc. etc. And most of those people were the greatest masters of the world art history."They also tend to be long dead. If you met a great, living painter and you knew that he beats his family when drunk, and if you buy a painting from him he'll use the proceeds to go on a bender, would you buy it?
I listen to a bit of opera and amongst my favorite operatic works are Wagner's Ring Cycle and Parsifal. IMHO, these operas represent the pinnacle of the art form. However, Wagner's anti-semitism initially encougraged me to maintain some distance from his compositions. Eventually I was able to separate the art from the artist and was then able to fully immerse myself in his work and what an impact they had on me. As a gay man, I have some issues with Mr. Card. I think he's a homophobic bigot hiding behind his so called religious values. However, that doesn't mean he can't produce something that has artistic value. His being a homophobe doesn't mean mean that all his work is necessarily homophobic. Plus, I sincerly believe that the only way to grow as a person is to encouter views that differ from mine.
Then there is the issue of giving my money over to a person who can then turn around and use those funds in crusades that go against my beliefs. I've been thinking about this quite a bit since the whole Chick-fil-A episode. My initial impression is that no, I should not give these folks my money. This is a tough one and I don't really have an answer. What I keep thinking about though is that the money I spend on a daily basis could be used to fund any sort of unsavory activities. Do I just stop consuming evreything out of fear that my money could go to support a cause or person I don't agree with? Well, that seems a bit ridiculous. So where do I draw the line?
Where to draw the line is up to our own moral codes. I don't go seeking issues to purposely stand against but if one comes up where I jist cant abide by their position ie card. Thats where I stop.
@Dharmakirti - Read my comment above. It's not incumbent on you to vet every single purcahse you make but that's simply not relevant in cases like this. In OSC and Chick-Fil-A's case they're openly telling you their beliefs. No research required. The question is, what will you do about it?
If you feel their stance is repugnant to you or even actively harmful to you, do you back up your talk with action or not? This is not "a tough one" it's simply aligning your actions with your beliefs. If the action being asked of you were to quit your job and risk losing your house then the choice is harder* but we're talking about whether or not to see a movie. This isn't a huge sacrifice.
*Even in this case I'd say that if you discovered that your employer held beliefs which were repellent to you and actively worked against your interest you should probably look for another job and quit that one, i.e. you don't immediately quit and put yourself at risk but you really do need to consider whether you continue working for a company that actively works against what you feel is right.
Rick wrote: "@Dharmakirti - Read my comment above. It's not incumbent on you to vet every single purcahse you make but that's simply not relevant in cases like this. In OSC and Chick-Fil-A's case they're ope..."
Thanks for your comments.
Generally speaking, I would say that I agree with what you are saying. My general inclination is to not support those who go around preaching homophobia.
But, I could see myself supporting a homophobic artist in an instance where I find the art to be of high value. A piece of art that genuinely confronts, challenges or opens someone up to a new point of view or experience is worth supporting regardless of the views of the artist. Art is transcendent.
Dharmakirti I normally don't respond to what is said during these dicussions ,but what you said made sense.And because of the Chick-fil-A uproar I no longer get food from there.I personally am straight,but it's a travesty to prohibit 2 people from getting married if they are in love.
Sean wrote: "They also tend to be long dead. If you met a great, living painter and you knew that he beats his family when drunk, and if you buy a painting from him he'll use the proceeds to go on a bender, would you buy it? "
Yes of course I would love to be able to buy a Pablo Picasso painting. I also would love to meet H.P.Lovecraft even though I know he thought that I was racially beneath him. And Roman Polanski is still one of my most favourite directors. Frank Miller is practically a neo-nazi but Dark Knight Returns is still one of the masterpieces of comics.
Come to think of it, some of the money from Miller books I bought(and I have a lot) might have gone to fund some Tea Party group or worse. But I don't care because even that I have OCD, I know that I can't control where every penny I spent ends up. Frank Miller deserved my money for his great works like Batman:Year One, DKR and Sin City; and if he is doing something that I morally oppose with it, that should be on his concious, not mine.
Anyway, that is enough American socio-politics for me. :)
"But, I could see myself supporting a homophobic artist in an instance where I find the art to be of high value. A piece of art that genuinely confronts, challenges or opens someone up to a new point of view or experience is worth supporting regardless of the views of the artist. Art is transcendent. "That's fair. I personally don't think a blockbuster movie is going to hit that bar, but I can see a truly important piece of art causing me to make an exception. However, it really needs to be an important work of art... not merely a good book or movie. The exception, for me, needs to clear a high bar or it's just an excuse to see the movie or read the book and soothe one's conscience.
Rick wrote: "That's fair. I personally don't think a blockbuster movie is going to hit that bar, but I can see a truly important piece of art causing me to make an exception. However, it really needs to be an important work of art... not merely a good book or movie. The exception, for me, needs to clear a high bar or it's just an excuse to see the movie or read the book and soothe one's conscience"Agreed.
Rick wrote: "The exception, for me, needs to clear a high bar or it's just an excuse to see the movie or read the book and soothe one's conscience...."Yep. Just what you said there. Also I think it's a personal decision. I won't purchase or read OSC, but it's not because I'm worried that a few pennies of my money will go to support something I find repugnant. Example: Everytime I make a payment on my house to Bank of America that is exactly what's happening. BUT when it comes to entertainment...if it don't feel good...don't do it. For me to support/read OSC, and Frank Miller for that matter or Chick-fil-A, it feels like an act of self-hatred. I respect myself more than that. It's not about the money.
From what I've read in this thread, Ender's game is one of the most influential and famous sci-fi novels.Others say it is rubbish...
How do we determine these great works of art? And how do you determine if something is great or profound if you have not experienced it?
Dirk wrote: "From what I've read in this thread, Ender's game is one of the most influential and famous sci-fi novels.Others say it is rubbish...
How do we determine these great works of art? And how do you determine if something is great or profound if you have not experienced it?"
I do agree that you can't make a pronouncement about something if you haven't experienced it. It's silly to claim that all roller coasters suck if you've never ridden one. (Just to make up a wacky example because I love analogies.) Sometimes artists and works of art fall out of favor once we discover the truth behind the work or the person. Witness Mel Gibson's sad descent.
Reminds me of the line by Barry from High Fidelity: "Subquestion -- is it in fact unfair to criticize a formerly great artist for his latter-day sins? 'Is it better to burn out than to fade away?'"
The fact that he says "latter-day" is icing on the cake.
I've never held to the popular opinion that Ender's Game was great art. But there is the sense that still holds true today that when something wins an award it gains some sort of gravitas simply by virtue of having won. One of my college teachers once said the difference between "stuff you like" and "art" is whether or not it's hung in a museum. He's right... and the distinction is nonsense. People do like the idea of some sort of authority bestowing importance on stuff, and that goes for art as well. Maybe more so.
I'm assuming ender's game didn't win any awards?
Ender's Game won both the Nebula and Hugo award and is on several "top 100 novel" lists.
For myself, I read a lot of works by problematic authors -- if you're reading books from the early part of the 20th century or earlier it's almost inescapable. And I'm sure there are contemporary authors whose works I read and whose political/social views I'd find totally abhorrent if I sought them out.Having said that, I can't in good conscience read or support OSC any more -- not just because of his views per se but because he's been so outspoken about them and has expressed them in ways that strike me as downright vicious and hateful.
But it's a personal decision -- everybody has to decide where to draw the line.
I read some OSC waaaay back in the day, and kept trying because so many people were fascinated, but I invariably ended up irritated by *something*, nonfiction as well as fiction. Saw him on a panel once, for whatever that's worth.Been really weird watching Ender's Game, which I *hated*, turn into Required Reading.
It's nice to be unconflicted about this!
having recently read it again, Ender's Game disturbs me. It's the idea of torturing and psychologically tormenting children and somehow it's the GOOD guys doing this. So yeah, the messages in his book are a bit disgusting when you think of them too much.
Synesthesia wrote: "having recently read it again, Ender's Game disturbs me. It's the idea of torturing and psychologically tormenting children and somehow it's the GOOD guys doing this. So yeah, the messages in his b..."Actually, if you look at it, the government and military that allowed such physical and psychological torment in the training and use of child soldiers, as do the child soldiers themselves, end up being renounced in the end. I think he was being deliberately provocative and disturbing with that because, if you look at the countries that have used child soldiers, it has been done in rather deplorable ways and the people who did/do train and indoctrinate child soldiers did see their action as, at the very least, justified or, at the most horrifying, good. When you read it as a criticism of the use of child soldiers rather than as the story of Ender, it takes on a bit of a new light in which the disturbing nature actually has a relevant purpose.
I think the point is that it is SUPPOSED to disturb you. (view spoiler) Just because a story is told from a particular point of view doesn't mean you are supposed to think the that's the "good" view; I definitely didn't think the government was the good guys :P. It may be told that way to get you to see how people can justify something horrible, and how messed-up that can be. Not all protagonists are meant to be admirable, and not all perspectives are given for the purpose of condoning them.(view spoiler)
Giving this thread a necro. It seems the threat of boycott is affecting Scott Card's career.http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/0...
I'm honestly happy about this, though not for any broad socio-political reasons. I just think his Superman would, for lack of a better word, suuuck.
The Sword and Laser
Books mentioned in this topic
Maps in a Mirror: The Short Fiction of Orson Scott Card (other topics)Seventh Son (other topics)
Empire (other topics)
You say I can't understand because I'm not gay, but then I could say you can't understand because you don't know what it's like to be hurt by what people say against me. But I won't say that because I don't think it's true. I've spent lots of time explaining my position BECAUSE I don't think that's true, because I think people CAN understand and empathize with things they do not experience personally. And I spent time explaining because I think people's minds can change when presented with different insights or observations; another reason I think equating a person's political views with every aspect of their lives is futile.
But the discussion has gotten off track. I didn't mean to offend anyone, or spend time proving that I care about political issues, or air out our positions on gay marriage.