4 ms·

I am torn. I know Orson Scott is a self declared homophobe. But I like Enders Game.

by seivan 14y ago

mrcharles 14y ago
Here's the thing: You probably disagree and even loathe the personal politics of many of the artists whose works you enjoy, be it writing, paintings music, games, etc. If you go down the road of selecting works based on a merit outside of the work itself, then you will spend more of your time researching people than ever experiencing a work. My view is that as long as the work itself does not reinforce terrible positions on issues social or otherwise, then the work should probably be evaluated in a vacuum. Otherwise, you'll probably go insane.
- seivan 14y ago
  I didn't have to do research, it was at the back of my head, I recall reading his shitty essay some time ago. With the facts at hand, I can make a decision without going insane. :)
  - cobrausn 14y ago
    Still, his point that creative works should be viewed in a vacuum holds merit. If the work itself doesn't express something you disagree with, then there is no reason to rail against it. Our creative works can be better than we are.
    - seivan 14y ago
      It's a question of supporting and finance of something you dislike. I am not saying Enders Game does not stand for its own merits.
      - mrcharles 14y ago
        Right, but if you want to avoid a certain level of hypocrisy, blindly consuming works from content creators whose views you do not know is at odds with actively blocking one simply because you do not agree with his views on a subject which is external to the work itself.
- tallanvor 14y ago
  I agree that doing a bunch of research to decide whether or not you agree with an author before reading his works is silly, but at the same time, if you are made aware of them, there's nothing wrong with letting that determine whether or not you want to support the person by purchasing their works. In the case of Card, he unfortunately has put his position in some of the books. It can be rather subtle, but there was definitely an example of it in Ender's Shadow.
- IvyMike 14y ago
  > Here's the thing: You probably disagree and even loathe the personal politics of many of the artists whose works you enjoy The thing that is most infuriating about OSC is that his stories imply a philosophy completely opposite those he espouses in his political writings. For example, one of my favorite short stories is OSC's Unaccompanied Sonata. The story has a message about the cruelty and ultimate impossibility of making someone deny their core self. http://janlowman.escuelacampoalegre.wikispaces.net/file/view/Card,+Unaccompanied+Sonata.pdf http://janlowman.escuelacampoalegre.wikispaces.net/file/view... But then in real life, OSC says stuff like gay people already have marriage rights because they can get married, just not to their own sex. How can the guy who wrote the above story think something like that? Like I said, it's infuriating.
  - benpbenp 14y ago
    What is your response to this point though? I don't see how it is anything but completely valid; the point is that there is no objectively defined action that is prohibited for one group and allowed for another, so the "equal rights" argument is a canard. Perhaps there are other arguments to be made, I certainly don't want to get into that here, I am simply responding to your feeling that this is an infuriating thing to say.
    - IvyMike 14y ago
      Would you have accepted this as a valid argument back when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect? "There's no issue, black and white people can get married. Just not to each other." I also wonder how OSC would argue against changing the law so that ONLY homosexual marriage was legal. By his argument, he should have no problem, since he would still have marriage rights, only to another man. > your feeling that this is an infuriating thing to say. It's infuriating in light of the subtext of the linked story, which is that ultimately you can't deny your true self. When he makes an argument that gays have rights if only they would deny their true selves... Arg!
      - Crake 14y ago
        Thank you.
- jiggy2011 14y ago
  It's not just authors, any time you make a transaction you risk pushing money in a "bad" direction. In many cases worse than somebody just having an opinion but actual bad stuff happening. For example if you are strongly anti-war it could be argued that you should quit your job and start claiming as much welfare as possible to try and deny the government funds for buying weapons, if you pay tax you are literally funding war.
balsam 14y ago
Don't worry about it. Isaac Newton was a total bastard too.
JackGibbs 14y ago
Not to mention an anti-Semite, which actually plays a prominent role (Rose da Nose) in the book. Still, Heinlein was a fascist, and L. Ron Hubbard, well...Anyway, it's the age old debate that pops up with artists. Do you overlook their personal issues for the sake of their work? Wagner is another anti-Semetic example. I'll probably go see it, but I have my issues... EDIT: I should say I think Heinlein was a fascist. I know that's a contentious point, and various people read him various ways...
- cousin_it 14y ago
  Heinlein was large, and contained multitudes :-) I'm still floored by the fact that he wrote Starship Troopers, his ultimate "fascist" book, during a break in the middle of writing Stranger in a Strange Land, his ultimate "hippie" book. From a high enough vantage point, I guess both the left and the right look like amateurs, and you can't resist the temptation to come up with better moves for both sides...
- jerf 14y ago
  Heinlein is generally better read as a libertarian, possibly to the point of anarchist. He wrote about Fascist societies, but reading both his fiction and his nonfiction does not generally lead to the conclusion that he considered this desirable or stable. I think the people who get that he's a fascist are making the mistake of assuming that because an author writes about it, they are endorsing it. This obviously falls apart under any sort of thought whatsoever, but that's more thought than most people give it. Alternatively, they get it from the Starship Troopers movie, in which IMHO the director misread Heinlein as a fascist, leading everyone else to the same conclusion by the nose. This is not the best source from which to conclude anything about Heinlein; I think it was a good movie on its own merits but little of Heinlein's politics shown through. In N-Space, Larry Niven directly addresses another example of this; Jerry Pournelle's Co-Dominion future, in which their co-written A Mote in God's Eye takes place, is set in a galactic empire consciously set up to be feudalistic, including starting from a fairly idealistic conception of feudalism where obligations are bi-directional, and decaying (in the sequel) into the sort of feudalism where the nobles begin to consider their privileges their right without any corresponding responsibility. Neither author is endorsing this political structure, per se, but observing the course of human history, one can not deny that under the right circumstances feudalism could very well rise again, and it can work well for a story.
cincinnatus 14y ago
More than a homophobe, he turns out to hold truly repugnant views on a wide range of subjects. I was really disappointed when I learned this, not by reading about it but by reading a book he wrote post 9/11 (Empire) that I kept expecting to turn into a clever political satire, but never turned the corner.
tallanvor 14y ago
It's a personal choice, right? It's not like the gay community is going to shun you if you see his film. At least, I'm not going to stop talking to my friends who see the movie. Personally, I love some of his work, but I made a choice not to buy his books anymore due to what he has said publicly about homosexuality. Admittedly, I had already cooled on his works after rereading some of them and realizing just how much Mormon ideology was included.
fennecfoxen 14y ago
Well. If by "homophobe" you mean someone who dislikes and works to oppose gay marriage causes, yes. If by "homophobe" you mean someone who literally fears that social acceptance of gay marriage, related causes, and homosexuality in general is likely to undermine the vitality (and virtue) of America, then yes. But do realize that the guy treats homosexual people with similar levels of dignity and respect as any other human being, at least in the likes of his writing. If you doubt this and wish to see examples in his literature, please read his novel _Songmaster_ - a novel which caught Card a lot of flak from conservative groups who accused it of glorifying homosexuality. (If you still doubt this afterwards, well, okay, maybe it won't convince everyone, but you'll be much better informed about the nature of the problem and your opinion will have nuance). Anyway. For what it's worth, I'm sure a lot of interesting authors like C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkein, and many of their less obvious contemporaries would find themselves in a non-dissimilar position if the issue were one in their times - as would a variety of Christian groups opposing gay marriage and similar causes today. For this reason I find the outcome of the recent Card/Superman hullabaloo disappointing and distressing. It is nigh unto unthinkable that you would actual find any representation in a Card-authored Superman comic which would be anything less than perfectly charitable towards homosexuals - and more likely he would just steer clear of stuffing modern sociopolitical controversies into it. (And it's nice to escape those once in a while, you know? like in comics and stuff. :P) DISCLAIMER. No further comment is offered herein on the validity or invalidity of gay marriage, related causes, or any group which has opinions on those issues, except maybe for the likes of Westboro Baptist, which almost everyone ever knows is something like the worst people ever. :P (Postscript. Also, notwithstanding above comments and expression of disappointment, the overall validity of Orson Scott Card or his works is left as an exercise to the reader. But your opinions would be improved by, and deserve to be shaped by, nuance. :)
- tallanvor 14y ago
  Read Ender's Shadow and you'll find an example where he doesn't treat homosexuality with respect or dignity.
  - fennecfoxen 14y ago
mhd 14y ago
I'm kinda glad that when reading the book a few years ago (way out of my teenage years) that I found it to be a rather trite Mary Sue story with some very questionable moral conclusions, and thus didn't have to come to grips with some kind of Wagnerian conflict.
darkchasma 14y ago
I was about to read Enders Game, and while looking for reviews, I came across a piece regarding his homophobia. I'm really glad, I would have been really upset if I discovered after I had read the book. I can't change the world for the better, but I can choose not to put my money in the hands of bigots.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
I wonder if he would be willing to reconsider his beliefs about same sex marriage now that there is more evidence to draw upon. Other staunch conservatives, like David Frum [1], have recently acknowledged that they were wrong to fear that same-sex marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage or weaken social integrity. [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opinion/frum.gay.marriage_1_family-stability-marriage-hispanic-mothers http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opinion/frum.gay.marriage... Edit - on examination, probably not. [2] [2] http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/hc.e.211703.lasso http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/hc.e.211703.lasso
waterlesscloud 14y ago
A lot of artists (and a lot of coders for that matter) have political views I disagree with. I even have friends with beliefs I strongly disagree with. I don't care. I have no belief test that they must pass before I enjoy/use their work. Or talk to them. The very idea of such a thing repells me.
- seivan 14y ago
  I have a hard time to nail down civil rights to just plain simple political views and beliefs.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
kobi 14y ago
Libraries can help- you can legally enjoy fiction and videos without directing additional funds to the creators.
gadders 14y ago
I think it's cognitive dissonance [1] You admire the works, but can't admire the man. Other people in this category: Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, Roald Dahl, Julian Assange. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

I am torn. I know Orson Scott is a self declared homophobe. But I like Enders Game.

by seivan 14y ago

I am torn. I know Orson Scott is a self declared homophobe. But I like Enders Game.

Here's the thing: You probably disagree and even loathe the personal politics of many of the artists whose works you enjoy, be it writing, paintings music, games, etc. If you go down the road of selecting works based on a merit outside of the work itself, then you will spend more of your time researching people than ever experiencing a work. My view is that as long as the work itself does not reinforce terrible positions on issues social or otherwise, then the work should probably be evaluated in a vacuum. Otherwise, you'll probably go insane.

seivan 14y ago
I didn't have to do research, it was at the back of my head, I recall reading his shitty essay some time ago. With the facts at hand, I can make a decision without going insane. :)
- cobrausn 14y ago
  Still, his point that creative works should be viewed in a vacuum holds merit. If the work itself doesn't express something you disagree with, then there is no reason to rail against it. Our creative works can be better than we are.
  - seivan 14y ago
    It's a question of supporting and finance of something you dislike. I am not saying Enders Game does not stand for its own merits.
    - mrcharles 14y ago
      Right, but if you want to avoid a certain level of hypocrisy, blindly consuming works from content creators whose views you do not know is at odds with actively blocking one simply because you do not agree with his views on a subject which is external to the work itself.
tallanvor 14y ago
I agree that doing a bunch of research to decide whether or not you agree with an author before reading his works is silly, but at the same time, if you are made aware of them, there's nothing wrong with letting that determine whether or not you want to support the person by purchasing their works. In the case of Card, he unfortunately has put his position in some of the books. It can be rather subtle, but there was definitely an example of it in Ender's Shadow.
IvyMike 14y ago
> Here's the thing: You probably disagree and even loathe the personal politics of many of the artists whose works you enjoy The thing that is most infuriating about OSC is that his stories imply a philosophy completely opposite those he espouses in his political writings. For example, one of my favorite short stories is OSC's Unaccompanied Sonata. The story has a message about the cruelty and ultimate impossibility of making someone deny their core self. http://janlowman.escuelacampoalegre.wikispaces.net/file/view/Card,+Unaccompanied+Sonata.pdf http://janlowman.escuelacampoalegre.wikispaces.net/file/view... But then in real life, OSC says stuff like gay people already have marriage rights because they can get married, just not to their own sex. How can the guy who wrote the above story think something like that? Like I said, it's infuriating.
- benpbenp 14y ago
  What is your response to this point though? I don't see how it is anything but completely valid; the point is that there is no objectively defined action that is prohibited for one group and allowed for another, so the "equal rights" argument is a canard. Perhaps there are other arguments to be made, I certainly don't want to get into that here, I am simply responding to your feeling that this is an infuriating thing to say.
  - IvyMike 14y ago
    Would you have accepted this as a valid argument back when anti-miscegenation laws were in effect? "There's no issue, black and white people can get married. Just not to each other." I also wonder how OSC would argue against changing the law so that ONLY homosexual marriage was legal. By his argument, he should have no problem, since he would still have marriage rights, only to another man. > your feeling that this is an infuriating thing to say. It's infuriating in light of the subtext of the linked story, which is that ultimately you can't deny your true self. When he makes an argument that gays have rights if only they would deny their true selves... Arg!
    - Crake 14y ago
      Thank you.
jiggy2011 14y ago
It's not just authors, any time you make a transaction you risk pushing money in a "bad" direction. In many cases worse than somebody just having an opinion but actual bad stuff happening. For example if you are strongly anti-war it could be argued that you should quit your job and start claiming as much welfare as possible to try and deny the government funds for buying weapons, if you pay tax you are literally funding war.

balsam 14y ago

Don't worry about it. Isaac Newton was a total bastard too.

JackGibbs 14y ago

Not to mention an anti-Semite, which actually plays a prominent role (Rose da Nose) in the book. Still, Heinlein was a fascist, and L. Ron Hubbard, well...Anyway, it's the age old debate that pops up with artists. Do you overlook their personal issues for the sake of their work? Wagner is another anti-Semetic example. I'll probably go see it, but I have my issues... EDIT: I should say I think Heinlein was a fascist. I know that's a contentious point, and various people read him various ways...

cousin_it 14y ago
Heinlein was large, and contained multitudes :-) I'm still floored by the fact that he wrote Starship Troopers, his ultimate "fascist" book, during a break in the middle of writing Stranger in a Strange Land, his ultimate "hippie" book. From a high enough vantage point, I guess both the left and the right look like amateurs, and you can't resist the temptation to come up with better moves for both sides...
jerf 14y ago
Heinlein is generally better read as a libertarian, possibly to the point of anarchist. He wrote about Fascist societies, but reading both his fiction and his nonfiction does not generally lead to the conclusion that he considered this desirable or stable. I think the people who get that he's a fascist are making the mistake of assuming that because an author writes about it, they are endorsing it. This obviously falls apart under any sort of thought whatsoever, but that's more thought than most people give it. Alternatively, they get it from the Starship Troopers movie, in which IMHO the director misread Heinlein as a fascist, leading everyone else to the same conclusion by the nose. This is not the best source from which to conclude anything about Heinlein; I think it was a good movie on its own merits but little of Heinlein's politics shown through. In N-Space, Larry Niven directly addresses another example of this; Jerry Pournelle's Co-Dominion future, in which their co-written A Mote in God's Eye takes place, is set in a galactic empire consciously set up to be feudalistic, including starting from a fairly idealistic conception of feudalism where obligations are bi-directional, and decaying (in the sequel) into the sort of feudalism where the nobles begin to consider their privileges their right without any corresponding responsibility. Neither author is endorsing this political structure, per se, but observing the course of human history, one can not deny that under the right circumstances feudalism could very well rise again, and it can work well for a story.

cincinnatus 14y ago

More than a homophobe, he turns out to hold truly repugnant views on a wide range of subjects. I was really disappointed when I learned this, not by reading about it but by reading a book he wrote post 9/11 (Empire) that I kept expecting to turn into a clever political satire, but never turned the corner.

tallanvor 14y ago

It's a personal choice, right? It's not like the gay community is going to shun you if you see his film. At least, I'm not going to stop talking to my friends who see the movie. Personally, I love some of his work, but I made a choice not to buy his books anymore due to what he has said publicly about homosexuality. Admittedly, I had already cooled on his works after rereading some of them and realizing just how much Mormon ideology was included.

fennecfoxen 14y ago

Well. If by "homophobe" you mean someone who dislikes and works to oppose gay marriage causes, yes. If by "homophobe" you mean someone who literally fears that social acceptance of gay marriage, related causes, and homosexuality in general is likely to undermine the vitality (and virtue) of America, then yes. But do realize that the guy treats homosexual people with similar levels of dignity and respect as any other human being, at least in the likes of his writing. If you doubt this and wish to see examples in his literature, please read his novel _Songmaster_ - a novel which caught Card a lot of flak from conservative groups who accused it of glorifying homosexuality. (If you still doubt this afterwards, well, okay, maybe it won't convince everyone, but you'll be much better informed about the nature of the problem and your opinion will have nuance). Anyway. For what it's worth, I'm sure a lot of interesting authors like C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkein, and many of their less obvious contemporaries would find themselves in a non-dissimilar position if the issue were one in their times - as would a variety of Christian groups opposing gay marriage and similar causes today. For this reason I find the outcome of the recent Card/Superman hullabaloo disappointing and distressing. It is nigh unto unthinkable that you would actual find any representation in a Card-authored Superman comic which would be anything less than perfectly charitable towards homosexuals - and more likely he would just steer clear of stuffing modern sociopolitical controversies into it. (And it's nice to escape those once in a while, you know? like in comics and stuff. :P) DISCLAIMER. No further comment is offered herein on the validity or invalidity of gay marriage, related causes, or any group which has opinions on those issues, except maybe for the likes of Westboro Baptist, which almost everyone ever knows is something like the worst people ever. :P (Postscript. Also, notwithstanding above comments and expression of disappointment, the overall validity of Orson Scott Card or his works is left as an exercise to the reader. But your opinions would be improved by, and deserve to be shaped by, nuance. :)

tallanvor 14y ago
Read Ender's Shadow and you'll find an example where he doesn't treat homosexuality with respect or dignity.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago

mhd 14y ago

I'm kinda glad that when reading the book a few years ago (way out of my teenage years) that I found it to be a rather trite Mary Sue story with some very questionable moral conclusions, and thus didn't have to come to grips with some kind of Wagnerian conflict.

darkchasma 14y ago

I was about to read Enders Game, and while looking for reviews, I came across a piece regarding his homophobia. I'm really glad, I would have been really upset if I discovered after I had read the book. I can't change the world for the better, but I can choose not to put my money in the hands of bigots.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

I wonder if he would be willing to reconsider his beliefs about same sex marriage now that there is more evidence to draw upon. Other staunch conservatives, like David Frum [1], have recently acknowledged that they were wrong to fear that same-sex marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage or weaken social integrity. [1] http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opinion/frum.gay.marriage_1_family-stability-marriage-hispanic-mothers http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opinion/frum.gay.marriage... Edit - on examination, probably not. [2] [2] http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/hc.e.211703.lasso http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/hc.e.211703.lasso

waterlesscloud 14y ago

A lot of artists (and a lot of coders for that matter) have political views I disagree with. I even have friends with beliefs I strongly disagree with. I don't care. I have no belief test that they must pass before I enjoy/use their work. Or talk to them. The very idea of such a thing repells me.

seivan 14y ago
I have a hard time to nail down civil rights to just plain simple political views and beliefs.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

kobi 14y ago

Libraries can help- you can legally enjoy fiction and videos without directing additional funds to the creators.

gadders 14y ago

I think it's cognitive dissonance [1] You admire the works, but can't admire the man. Other people in this category: Mike Tyson, Roman Polanski, Roald Dahl, Julian Assange. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance