I disagree. Like I said above, the guy had one good story in him. The rest of his work is just him trying to recapture his glory.
He’s written other good stuff outside of the Ender books. The first two books of his Prentice Alvin series were good, and the third okay; his book Songmaster was pretty good. I haven’t heard much good about anything he’s written in the last decade or decade and a half, but there was definitely some talent there. But he’s also definitely one of those authors whose series all have a downward trajectory in quality.
I’m in this category. I loved the Ender books (well, some of them), and I love comics. I was really tempted to pick up the Ender series when it was being released in comic form, but I just don’t have any desire to give the man any of my money. I’m not going to stand there and tell other people to not buy it, and I don’t think poorly on my comic store for carrying it - he’s just not someone that I want to spend money on.
Couldn’t pass this thread up, especially for the opportunity to spread information about the potential impact Card’s name has on the sales of Shadow Complex - the pros and cons of his involvement are pretty thoroughly documented.
The most compelling thing one can say against Card hasn’t anything to do with his later books, nor even does it need to be said by anyone else. Here are a few quotes of his:
also,
So yeah - regardless of how one feels about withholding their own finances from an otherwise desirable product because of the political views of one of its contributors, these opinions are pretty beyond the pale. If this were just some average writer, artist, or programmer within the project, that would be one thing–but this is Orson Scott Card, world-famous novelist, quite wealthy political activist, and now a chairman on the board of the National Organization for Marriage.
So, aside from the fact that he’s among the most well-known and vitriolic vocal activists against any gay rights at all, he also chairs in an organization which uses contributions to spread more political bile and demonize the very idea of gay marriage. With this in mind, it does seem rather strange for any queer (or queer-friendly) gamer to unreservedly purchase something which will help put money in Card’s accounts, some amount of which will then be spent on TV spots and campaigns to reduce the influence of and misinform the public about gay rights.
This is an old argument by internet standards, but it’s fairly new to the gaming sphere, so the information here doesn’t come from my own fiery passion as much as it does my own interest in informing folks here about Orson Scott Card’s influence and his new favorite medium for gathering revenue. I’ve already made up my mind, as have many other queer gamers.
I like it. “All those other theist are idiots but not my theist, no sir! My theist is an A-1 theist and doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with those other theist.”
Odesio
True, but the argument could be made that boycotting Shadow Complex (or Dragon Age) because of Card’s involvement is hurting innocent bystanders at Chair and BioWare. As I said, even the developers at Chair don’t much care for his politics, but should his minimal involvement result in a boycott?
Does it strike anyone else as odd that it’s Bioware we’re talking about here? If there’s any company that could legitimately claim to at least have tried to make a contribution to their homosexual fans over the years, it’s Bioware. Juhani and Sky’s romance subplots alone* are more of a bone than most places have touched. And one of the best pieces of all is that they weren’t in your face, they weren’t worked up and hyped as gay icons, they just were, a little hidden, a bit tricky to get to like the others… and you were supposed to be cool with that, they’re another option like everyone else. I suppose it could be “new management” and all, but given their track record I don’t think they meant to endorse his politics.
*I’m not counting Liara/the Consort because of the biology and culture of the Asari.
I think you misunderstood me. There was more than 1, but that’s not the important part. The important part was the fact I was shown that my immediate response at meeting someone who is a theist is incorrect. That reactionary assumption still exists for a moment, perhaps upon hearing someone praise Jesus, for example. But it’s there only for a moment, since I know better now. Probably the same way as someone might be alarmed by a black youth with pants down to his knees approaching them at night on the street, before shrugging and realizing their fear is irrational. It’s stereotyping. I’m not proud of it.
To those simply saying “personal beliefs don’t affect their art,” I think it’s important to realize Card isn’t just some guy who holds these beliefs but is really just an artist creating neutral work.
The man’s a hard-working political activist, and he puts money into anti-gay work. So supporting his career IS supporting his beliefs.
I haven’t read any Card but I’ve enjoyed works he’s been associated with. I disagree with his belifes but there are quite a few authors I like whom I disagree with. It doesn’t really bother me unless their beliefs negativly affect their work.
A relatable example would be HP Lovecraft. The man was a racist, anti-semite, homophobic, mygonist, xenophobe. At one point he said nice things about Hitler(he also died before WW2 began, and supposedly he dropped his admiration for Hitler later in life). His view of politics was bizarre at times. He also wrote some of the best horror I’ve ever read. No doubt his feelings of persecution(regardless of how legitimate they are) no doubt helped him create his works and his worlds.
However, he also lived in a time when a lot of these beliefs were common, and to his credit, the racist overtones were most prominent in his early career and went away as he matured, both as a writer and a person.
I’ve spent some time the last few years wondering if I should continue to give Card more of my money. And I’m damned if I can decide.
The last book of his I spent money on was Empire, which I despised - I damn near spit at each page’s political opinion - but, man, I couldn’t put it down.
Card is a damn good writer.
OSC’s views on homosexuality are far more nuanced than are portrayed in this thread. One of his very first books, Songmaster contains a sympathetic bisexual character.
He’s outlined his own views before and it’s far from reflexive fag hating.
I don’t have a problem separating an artist from his work. I love HP Lovecraft, despite his racist views. Chinatown is an amazing movie, and I’ve seen it a dozen times. But I won’t buy anything with Card’s name on it.
What’s the difference?
It comes down to harm. Orson Scott Card is using his money and influence to actively hurt people. If I buy one of his books, I’ve given him that much more money to hurt people. (The fact that I’m among the people he hates obviously plays into this.) HP Lovecraft, on the other hand, is dead. He can’t hurt anyone. And while Roman Polanski is still alive, whether I buy a ticket to The Pianist or not is not going to have any bearing on him raping another girl.
So, while I can separate Card’s books from Card’s beliefs, and judge them on their own merits, the question of aiding and abetting his campaign to maliciously damage innocent people supercedes any concern over the quality of his prose. Art is separate from morality, but it is not above morality. If supporting his art requires supporting harming other people, then I can’t support his art.
Once he is no longer in a position to cause harm, then the equation changes, and I may start consuming works associated with him.
Did you mean to link to a different essay there? One that didn’t contain quite so much reflexive fag hating?
The ever-growing Ender series makes it clear that the only purpose of human sexuality, in his view, is to perpetuate the species.
While Josif is, indeed, a sympathetic character, the sympathy arises from the fact that Josif is abused. Card, in his authorial voice (which he has demonstrated is no different from his real life voice), offers no sympathy for Josif’s abuse.
Yea, I’ll second Miller, that didn’t really make OSC look particularly great. I mean, its nice that he’s got a theological justification to put over his reflexive fag hating, but its still reflexive fag hating.
Thanks for that, Shalmanese - I actually came into this thread specifically to say the same thing. In addition to Songmaster, his Memory of Earth series also contains a very sympathetic gay character (at least, when I read it he was the character I most identified with) who tells off another character for her casually anti-gay attitudes (and tangentially actually makes a fairly forceful argument for homosexuality being inborn and not something that can be changed). I believe he gets some flack for this from conservatives.
That being said, I concur that he doesn’t do well on a soapbox. Heck, even on the issues where I agree with him I find myself with my teeth on edge (yes, okay, families are good, reproduction is a nice idea, I’m doing it myself, can you shut up about it now?).
Also, I should admit that I… am a huge fan of Richard Wagner. The guy was an abominable human being (orders of magnitudes worse than the most vile things you can believe about OSC)… but he was a genius.
Doesn’t that character end up marrying a woman and having kids with her?
Pardon me for harping on this, but let’s make one thing clear:
In the essay Shalanese linked to, Card makes the following point:
Homosexuals are loyal to the “homosexual community” above all other associations, specifically including their church. By implication, this may also include the state. Explicitly, based on what he says later in the essay, this includes “society” as a whole.
Homosexuals who argue for tolerance by the Mormon church are destroying said church. In fairness to Card, he does allow that they may not be doing this deliberately. They are, however, hypocrites.
Homosexuals are immature.
Sorry, apparently I was wrong in the second point above: all homosexuals are hypocrites, unless they’re completely chaste and properly ashamed of their sexuality. Also, they are fools and deceivers.
They are, further, “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” who are “attempting to devour the flock.”
Homosexuals who are not properly ashamed of their orientation should be prosecuted by the law, to serve as an example to other homosexuals of their proper place on the outside of society.
Homosexuals are, explicitly, not equal members of society.
He is, however, magnanimous enough to allow homosexuals to stay in the closet. It’s just the “flagrant” queers who should be locked up.
Supporting gay rights is tantamount to overthrowing democracy and instituting a tyranny.
Homosexuals are liars.
Homosexuals are joyless.
The concept of equal treatment of homosexuals under the law is inherently destructive to society.
Against that, we have two minor character from his novels that are not depicted as utterly craven monsters, despite being labeled as gay (and, at least in the case of the one from a book I’ve actually read, is at no point depicted as engaging in any homosexual activity). So, clearly, Card’s got a nuanced and accepting view of homosexuals, right?
Bullshit.
Really? 'Cause honestly, I’m not sure I agree with your first statement there. I feel like the right thing to do, ethically, is to spend my money on the work or art that I enjoy, regardless of whether I agree with the artist’s personal views. I’d like, ideally, to live in a world where a person’s political, social, and personal opinions don’t affect their ability to hold down a job that’s unrelated to those opinions. Yes, I think that OSC’s views on homosexuality are pretty odious, and I’ll speak out against those. But some in this thread (not you, Revtim, I’m not putting words in your mouth, but I’m responding to your post because it crystallized something for me) are stating that someone who views homosexuality in a negative light should be denied the chance to work on this sort of project on the basis of those beliefs, and that sort of discrimination bothers me.
OSC’s tendency to spend his own money on views that I don’t support muddies the water, I’ll admit. But I certainly won’t wish that he shouldn’t be allowed to work for these major companies.