8 ms·

I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.sa

• hugh3 15y ago
  Is he actually a terrible person, or merely one who happens to have unpopular opinions?
  • burgerbrain 15y ago
    In my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to judge a person by their publicly stated opinions.
    • hugh3 15y ago
      But where do you draw the line between "Opinions with which I disagree" and "Opinions which make you a bad person if you hold them"? I tend to classify really silly opinions as "loopy" rather than "evil", as long as they don't actually advocate violence or similar. OSC has loopy opinions, not immoral ones.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me, but hey, its a judgement call. Decide for yourself.
        • michaeldhopkins 15y ago
          You don't want this recursion to apply to you too. Saying a person who says someone is terrible is terrible puts you next in line. Fortunately for both of us I don't think you're terrible, just a little too excited to dislike someone.
          • burgerbrain 15y ago
            You know what? I think I'm actually alright with someone thinking that I am terrible because I think that outspoken homophobes are terrible. Yeah, I am pretty sure that doesn't concern me in the slightest. Edit: fixed stupid corrective spelling thing...
            • deleted 15y ago
              [deleted]
            • chernevik 15y ago
              Is that because you are willing to fight it out? Or because you think you've got the people with the "wrong" opinions well out-numbered? Use your imagination and consider circumstances where people with the "right" opinions are outnumbered, and considered dangerous. I _hope_ that I'd be saying the right things in Berlin 1935, or Richmond 1855, or Birmingham 1958, or Moscow 1920 - 1985. But I'm damn sure I'd be _concerned_ about the reaction to those remarks.
              • burgerbrain 15y ago
                I mean I am not going to lose sleep over people thinking less of me for disliking homophobes. I won't be persuaded to modify my opinions by warnings that the people I dislike (homophobes) will dislike me in return.
                • chernevik 15y ago
                  And you've already dismissed the possibility that they actually have reasons for their opinions, or you wouldn't refer to them with a pejorative. So it looks like nothing could persuade to change your mind. The problem with these "homophobes" is their closed minds, right?
                  • burgerbrain 15y ago
                    I don't care what their reasons are, nor have I ever doubted that they have them. Racists have reasons too, simply having a reason is worthless.
        • CWuestefeld 15y ago
          Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me To me, you sound like the thought police. In my moral code, we're entitled to think what we want, and nobody has any business condemning us based on our thoughts. The line is our actions: if we do something to someone as a result of our thoughts, that crosses the line. I've said to a few gay friends that I personally think that homosexuality is gross; but I also think that broccoli is gross. The fact that I feel that way doesn't have anything to do with the way I view them as people, and certainly not how I treat them -- not any more than my distaste for broccoli affects my relationship with eaters of broccoli. And everyone I've talked about this attitude with seems to think it's a perfectly reasonable one to hold.
          • Pooter 15y ago
            >> Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me > To me, you sound like the thought police. You sound like a dishonest jackass, or someone who can't bother reading to the end of the single line post he's responding to, which reads: >... but hey, its a judgement call. Decide for yourself. Which is essentially the opposite of being "the thought police." Also, it's great that gay people are cool with you thinking broccoli and their sexuality are gross. You should tell that story again, bro.
          • burgerbrain 15y ago
            You and Scott Card are both entitled to your own opinions and moral beliefs. And I am entitled to call people who spout anti-homosexual hate speech homophobes on the internet. Furthermore: if Scott Card's stated opinions on homosexuality were as.. mellow.. as yours, then you wouldn't see me caring quite so much. I'm not sure why you're defending yourself when I'm talking about Scott Card...
    • stavrianos 15y ago
      I generally agree, so long as you remember that talk is cheap. If you shouldn't respect someone too much for talking about the great things they'll do, you shouldn't hold it too hard against someone for talking about terrible positions.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        Expressing hateful ideas about others and bragging about oneself are hardly opposite concepts. Slightly tangential, but generally both negative. If however, someone expresses and endorses kind and progressive social statements, I certainly do use that when judging their character.
    • grandalf 15y ago
      Sure it's reasonable. But do I judge Steve Jobs by what toppings he likes on his pizza or what kind of rap he listens to? No. I may agree or disagree with him, but his opinions on those matters have no bearing whatsoever on my primary relationship with him, which is as a purchaser of the hardware and software he designs. Similarly with Card, I am a reader of his fiction and so I don't care what color socks he wears, how often he showers, or whether he has a framed picture of Ronald McDonald on his wall.
      • burgerbrain 15y ago
        Preferred pizza toppings are in no way comparable to homophobic statements.
        • grandalf 15y ago
          I think they are equivalent b/c both are simply aesthetic preferences. Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. Neither is an expert on the topic being opined about. At best one might claim that such a statement is ignorant. I think we start to get into trouble when we assume that an expert in one narrow area (such as fiction writing) should be/act non-ignorant in other areas of life. That is wishful thinking. It also suggests that we ought to expect "more" from someone with a narrow talent. Should a NFL player have perfect spelling? Should an olympic pole vaulter have a nuanced understanding of morality? Human aptitude is very narrow and we should appreciate it where we find it and not look to put anyone on a broad pedestal.
          • stonemetal 15y ago
            Neither is trying to persuade others to adopt his aesthetic preference. He wishes to make it illegal how is that not pushing his views on others?
            • grandalf 15y ago
              Citation?
  • zavulon 15y ago
    Hear, hear. I didn't find anything in this interview that identifies him as a "terrible person". Yes, things he says are unpopular on the internet, given the internet's demographics - young, liberal, etc. But I think someone who calls him a "terrible person" based only on views he expressed hasn't met many terrible people in their lifetime. And before I get accused of being his fanboy, I can't stand Ender's Game. I think it's the most overrated piece of garbage in history of sci-fi.. sometimes it reads like a work of a 12 year old. Terrible writing, worse, incredibly naive plot, I have no idea how it can be considered a "classic" and works by far better sci-fi authors like Clifford Simak, Robert Sheckley, Henry Kuttner, Alfred Bester, etc are unfairly forgotten. Having said that, I think the Card's masterpiece is the insults he wrote for Monkey Island game... now that's a great piece of writing!
• barrkel 15y ago
  I found myself disliking the slanted editorializing of the interviewer more than OSC. She's seems unhealthily intent on wallowing in victimhood, and delights in the power she has - "I prefer to get my digs in when I write the piece up, like this. It's a way of fighting back without ever having to face my tormentor head-on." - when whomever she's beating up can't fight back. She has become the bully herself.
• grandalf 15y ago
  The author misunderstands what Card is trying to say in response to her questions. Also, she evidently misunderstood Ender's Game quite a bit as well. Ender was suited to be a brilliant military commander precisely because he hated killing so much. A more bloodthirsty commander would have fallen for certain traps, committed certain errors of judgment that Ender was immune to. The nuance here is that Ender's strategic advantage came from a tremendous empathy with his adversary. In the end, Ender had to be fooled into destroying the Buggers precisely because of this empathy. He never would have been able to commit a genocide if he thought it was actually a genocide, but he could do it in the context of a video game. And, for what it's worth, the childhood bullying delivered by Ender's brother was also a function of Ender's love for his brother. We see very soon that Ender is capable of tremendous violence, but he tolerates mistreatment from Peter because he loves him so much. It is this victimhood which endears Ender to any reader who has felt victimized, by showing that in some cases there is great physical and moral power beneath the surface. The author of this strange hit piece is clearly trying to rile up various reactive political groups against Card. Sure, card is a Mormon and appears somewhat socially conservative in his personal beliefs. He is clearly not homophobic and became defensive when he sensed that the author was trying to broach the subject which had probably caused him much pain. Sure some people believe that anyone who doesn't advocate same sex marriage qualifies as homophobic... The author of the Salon piece clearly thinks that state recognition of same sex marriage is hugely important. I'd argue that through his books Card has done far more good (by enlightening people about important moral issues) than any harm caused by his traditional view (restricting the word "marriage" but not the state sanctioned bond between two people). The remarks about Card yapping and flirting suggest a very immature person wrote the article. Clearly at a certain point Card was trying to be polite and let the interview finish without incident... something that was framed as "shutting down"... Bizarre stuff.
  • araneae 15y ago
    I would take issue with your view that Card isn't homophobic. From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" by Orson Scott Card: "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." So the man actively opposes it gay marriage. He supports laws that make homosexual acts illegal. He doesn't think that gays should be protected from getting fired because of their sexuality. How is that not homophobic?
• patrickgzill 15y ago
  Thanks for the link, however the writer seems rather smugly superior over the (discovered to be) troglodyte she is interviewing.
• Entaroadun 15y ago
  Can't we make distinctions between the guy's philosophy and his writing? I for one do not feel the book (or any book) is diminished by my perception of the author as a person.
  • sho_hn 15y ago
    Personally, I can't: The book may not be diminished by itself, but my enjoyment of it certainly is, because I keep searching for evidence of the author's personal beliefs and/or agenda in the text, disrupting immersion. We're talking about someone who writes stuff like this: "The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible. [...] Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." (Source: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html) And there's a lot of similar-level, oddly familiar sounding looneyness in his writings on various other political topics as well. It's perhaps most disturbing - or fascinating - that a writer as articulate would be content to be such a cliché. At times I wonder if it's all an act.
    • chc 15y ago
      I find it interesting that the first passage offends you so much. I support gay rights and would really like to see gender taken out of the law altogether, but Card's philosophy there seems unarguably true. People have lots of natural impulses that society expects them to control, so whether homosexuality is natural or not doesn't matter. Homosexuality would be no less acceptable in my eyes if it were a choice. The difference between my outlook and Card's is in how we define "acceptable." I say, homosexuality is not harmful, so it should be allowed. Card uses a different measuring stick for his morality. That's all.
• freshfunk 15y ago
  I could only get through half the interview because the interviewer was horrible and obviously quite biased in the beginning trying really hard (too hard) to portray Card in a certain light.
• tptacek 15y ago
  This is a textbook terrible HN comment. It sources what may be the single worst literary interview ever conducted (the author interviews herself snickering at her subject) to illuminate the worst-kept secret in all sci-fi fandom (that Orson Scott Card is a devout socially conservative Mormon), all in service of the conclusion that social conservatives are "terrible" people. NOTHING GOOD CAN CONCEIVABLY COME OF THE ENSUING DISCUSSION. I've read a bunch of your comments. You are way better than this one. Please don't write stuff like this on HN.
  • hugh3 15y ago
    Well said, tptacek, well said. As soon as I saw Orson Scott Card's name come up, I knew the conversation would devolve into his (wacky) political views. There's now 59 comments on this thread, and while I haven't bothered to count it seems that at least 45 of 'em are in this rather dull political argument about gay rights. And since nobody has actually showed up with the anti-gay-rights position, we're stuck discussing precisely which nasty names we should call someone who doesn't share our mutual opinion. Even this rather narrow corner of debate space has apparently got some people rather heated. And yet, there I am too, throwing my weight in on this boring topic. And this is why politics is something one must actively avoid talking about.
  • nandemo 15y ago
    Indeed. I wish I could collapse down a subthread a la reddit.
    • Entaroadun 15y ago
      Ah, but you can. :) https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bbkfcamiocfccgmcjngdljolljhifdph https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bbkfcamiocfccgmcjn...
      • nandemo 15y ago
        Thanks. I normally use Firefox but I might end up using Chrome just for HN.