I don’t think R. Crumb has liked anything that has happened anywhere, ever. He’s a real “glass is half empty” kinda guy. Doesn’t equate with conservative, though.
Well, part of that is that he generally avoids homosexuality in his novels. I only remember one gay character in any of his stories, from his Homecoming series. There wasn’t anything overtly distasteful about the character, but I remember his depiction left me distinctly uncomfortable. This was way before I knew about the linked article. Oh, wait, there was one thing that raised a warning flag with me: in the book, it’s mentioned in passing that scientists had discovered the cause of homosexuality centuries ago (the book takes place in the very, very far future), and it was due to a hyperactive libido. 'Cause, you know those gays: they just can’t stop having sex, every single one of 'em.
Oh, well I guess that makes everything all right, then. (Mus’n’t use the rolleyes… mus’n’t use the rolleyes…)
I remember reading that article and being really saddened by it. I used to love his books, and one thing I liked about his writing is that he seemed to be a very moral person- moral in the truest sense. His beliefs about homosexuality are deeply immoral.
I got bad news and worse news for Card fans. A) The article’s real and penned by Card. I’ve seen him mention it in print elswhere. B) There was a follow-up interview at Salon where Card makes a further ass of himself (in one comment, he compares gays to street-gangs) and, almost as bad C) The interview, which could have at least been interesting (albiet depressing) and allowed Card a chance to explain his viewpoint, is done by a vapid, shallow, self-indulgent, whiney, shrew of a me-monkey. She vomits about 50 words about her meaningless innermost feelings for every 1 word she allows Card). Hint for the “interviewer”: No-one cares what you think. Just shut UP already.
Anyway, don’t take my contempt for the me-monkey who does the interview as support for Card, who ALSO comes across as an asshole.
HA! I remember that Salon article! Oh, lord, what an atrocious, irresponsible act of journalism that was. I guess you get the press you deserve, though.
Oh. My. Self.
(Well, I’m not a soliptist, but I needed something to end that phrase with after reading that * thing *.
A: That wasn’t an interview. That was the author’s reaction to the interview.
B: Card’s a jerk. I’m still going to read the rest of the Bean books, though. Remember: Bean is genius+ now. He will continue to get smarter for a while yet.
I just went at read the Salon interview, and I have to say Card disgusts me a great deal more than the interviewer. I get the feeling, though I haven’t read anything else of hers, that she was trying to communicate that she KNOWS she was breaking all kinds of journalistic rules in the piece, but that he horrified her so much that she just couldn’t hold back. In other words, she seems as aware as all of you are of the line she crossed, but wanted to make the crossing of that line an indicator of her own very real, very human reaction to what she thought was just going to be another journalistic exercise but became so much more . . . or less.
I don’t know quite what to think about this. I’ve read both linked articles and this thread and I don’t really have much of a comment formed.
I’m going to meet him tomorrow night. Maybe I’ll have something to say then. Maybe not.
And therein lies the problem with liking the tale so much that one elevates the teller to a special status.
Just finished Shadow Puppets, by OSC. I’ll read his SF and enjoy it, but but I’m not gonna be looking to him for moral guidance. Same as most other authors I read.
Example, please? I recently re-read Ender’s Game (as well as Xenocide, Speaker, and Children) and I don’t recall any “blatantly sexual scenes” involving children. Most of the children in Ender’s Game are prepubescent, anyway, and not sexually active.
What a gigantic jackass. I’m not sure what infuriates me more, his views on homosexuals or the idea that the only way to protect women from rape is by having big strong men escort them everywhere.
Unfortunetly, she admits that this is her usual modus operandi. And even if it weren’t, any half-competant journalist should know that she’d make a much greater impression by remaining neutral and just giving Card enough rope to hang himself with:
I considered search Salon for more articles by her, to see if she always writes like this, but then I decided that gargling a saline-and-ground-glass solution would be both more productive and infinitly more enjoyable.
I remember a short story by OSC where the protagonist rapes his 14-year-old daughter, but the character was not supposed to be a nice guy. I remember a few other stories where pubescent children are protitutes or otherwise involved in sex. I don’t think it’s evidence that he’s a pedophile, though.
I don’t buy the stuff he says about being pacifistic because he just can’t understand the urge to be violent. Another short story of his I read, about a guy whose road rage leads to him killing someone and then becoming addicted to killing, seemed to portray bloodlust too accurately to be written by someone who hasn’t experienced it.
I confess, I am not all that familiar with OSC’s work.
However, I do know one thing—my admiration for Richard Wagner’s music remains strong. Even though we all know that Wagner was a first class prick in real life.
I know that it’s hard not to feel the work is somehow “tainted” because the creator of the work is such a jackass. But perhaps we shouldn’t deprive ourselves of the good things that each of these particular jackasses have produced. Mustn’t dwell on the bad, but on the good.
His views on homosexuals are infuriating, but you are certainly misunderstanding the portion of the “interview” on rape. First, the interviewer brings up the subject of rape out of the blue, then complains, without any specifics, about how we aren’t doing enough to prevent it. Card takes this as a personal challenge against himself, which is understandable given the probable demeanor of the interviewer, and tries to illustrate the difficulty of coming up with specific new measures by bringing up two obviously ridiculous measures; punishing those who have not been found guilty, and chaperonage. Of course, this enrages the interviewer, despite the fact that any reasonable person would see that Card is not actually proposing that we arrest the innocent and have chaperonage, just that doing so would prevent more rapes, whatever the other effects, and that the interviewer has not presented any other specific steps we should take. Honestly, if you tell someone they are not doing enough, you should not become enraged that they don’t come up with a solution when you yourself don’t have one! The only possible response that would have satisfied the interviewer on that question would be for Card to say “Yes, you’re right, we aren’t doing enough and it’s very wrong.” His response was basically to say “What are you saying we should do?”
sigh I just can’t rationalize this all away. The homosexuals he has known have not made themselves happier by performing homosexual acts? That doesn’t even make sense! Would you say “the cats I have known have not made themselves happier by acting like cats?” It’s not only a nonsensical position, the idea itself is almost unintelligible. I am having great difficulty understanding how such a position can even exist in his mind. Aughh… my head hurts.
He’d say that the difference is that cats have to act like cats…catness is an inherant trait. Homosexuality, though, is a behavior. Everyone chooses whether or not to peform homosexual acts…there’s no such thing as an inherant trait of homosexuality. (note…this is what I think he’d say…not what I believe)
