Ender's Game

A lot of people also have a problem with EG, although not necessarily because of the book - it's because OSC is a horrible, homophobic douchebag of a person who's said some horribly offensive things in the past and has donated heavily to anti-gay causes out of his own pocket. I won't be seeing the movie or reading the book, because that's more money in OSC's pocket that he can use for causes that will harm me directly.

 

This doesn't make any sense. Even if one accepts the premise that OSC is a "horrible" human being, (which I disagree with; he seems like a family-oriented Christian Democrat who loves suburbs and 1950's America, with several antiquated views as a result), judging a work by the personality of its creator is something most of us grow past.

Dostoevsky, for instance, was a virulent anti-Semite. And yet, despite being a Russian Jew, this has never interfered in my enjoyment of his works.

If I started judging art based on the creators' moral fiber or how much I agree with their political/social views, I would be excluding myself from the majority of amazing books, movies, songs, etc. out there.

 

I don't disagree on your last point - it's entirely possible to enjoy someone's works without enjoying them as a person. Hell, Hemingway was a shitty homophobe, but I still read his works and enjoy them.

For me, it's a personal limit. I have a limit on how much I can stomach in a person's personality before I can't disassociate them with their work, and OSC crosses that line. Being queer myself, I find his views horrible, because he's incredibly hostile and homophobic towards me and people like me, and the things he says disgust me. It's not a matter of me disavowing any problematic people - if I did that, I'd have no one to read - it's about the amount I can take while still being able to respect myself and the author on some base level, and OSC doesn't meet that criteria.

 

Minstrel is right. The original short story was great (it's a short-story type of theme after all, isn't it?) I bought the book years afterwards, and was really annoyed that he'd ruined the story. Ach well. He writes pretty good how-to-write books, though.

Gigi, I had no idea OSC was such a rabid homophobe. Oh dear. Some lines are difficult to cross, as a reader. I'm heterosexual myself, so maybe I didn't pick it up from his writing the way you must have done (I've read several of his books) but if he's actually donating to anti-gay causes? Urgh. No, that's a line I won't cross either. Pretty unforgiveable.

I was slightly put off him, epecially when he got into that 7th son stuff (can't remember the character's name) and realised his religion was a big factor in his writing. I am not religious at all, and I do admit I kind of went off him, at that point.

I remember being TOTALLY dumped, when I learned that an actor-hero of mine, Jon Voight, had a political head transplant and has gone rabidly right wing (not sure when, as I've been living overseas for nearly 30 years, and have been out of the Hollywood Loop.) This is the guy I remember from the 60s and early 70s, being a left-wing icon and probably my favourite actor at the time. I watched every film he was in, back then. I just cannot watch any of his films now, despite the fact that he's one of the best actors of his generation, in my opinion. But no. That kind of thing does affect me.

 

He is an amazing writer and has won every major sci-fi writing award there is, including the Hugo and the Nebula, the John W. Campbell Award, the World Fantasy Award, and the Locus Award. I've also dreamed of attending his yearly “boot camp” for sci-fi writers. He teaches at Southern Virginia University, and serves as a judge for the annual sci-fi Writers of the Future awards. (Something I would love to enter.)

Listen, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and OSC is no exception. Apparently some people feel that everyone has the right to their opinion as long as it's the 'correct' opinion. I applaud him for his pro-marraige stance and for standing firmly in his beliefs against heavy pressure. I love Douglas Adams but I don't agree with some of his views, I would never call him a douchbag or horrible, though.

His work speaks for itself, and one day when he is dead and gone, it won't matter what his personal beliefs were, just like it doesn't matter for so many other writers.

 

This is a fallacious argument. OSC does have the right to his beliefs. Of course. There is no question. That someone choses not to patron his work because of those beliefs is protected by the exact same paradigm. That someone choses to think of him as a douchebag and verbalize that thought is protected by the exact same paradigm under which OSC felt the right to express the thoughts and ideas that gave rise to his perception by some as a douchebag. Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom to speak with impunity.

 

People sometimes seem to think that if someone won't buy a work from writer X simply because of that writer's beliefs, that it is the same as saying the writer doesn't have a right to those beliefs. I don't agree. The writer has a right to his own personal beliefs, and each reader has a right to decide whether they want to support the writer or the writer's works based on those beliefs. In Card's case, he is quite politically active, so when you buy his work you're contributing financial resources he can use in furtherance of his views on social policy. There's nothing wrong with refusing to do that, and that refusal does not equate to depriving Card of the right to believe what he likes.

 

I can understand having a personal limit; I can't watch a Matthew Broderick comedy anymore, since the back of my mind keeps reminding me he murdered two innocent women. For me, murder is a limit.

But OSC? His worst crime is being against gay marriage. He's not even a homophobe, and it's absurd that being against gay marriage gets conflated with that. He is simply against gay marriage because of his strong Christian beliefs. Athough I personally disagree with him, it hardly makes him a bad person, let alone so awful one can't read this works. Then again, "I disagree with someone's personal/social/political beliefs, ergo they're an awful human being" is a very popular line of logic these days.

No he isn't. You have likely convinced yourself of this point, but repeating it doesn't make it true. Many of my friends are against gay marriage, and I wouldn't call any of them homophobes. One of my ex-girlfriends had a best friend who was gay, but was against gay marriage because of her Christian religion.

Oh, like what? "I disagree with gay marriage"?

If you were consistent, you would indeed have no one to read. For instance, why do you still read Hemingway, if he is a "shitty homophobe" according to you? And do you realize that most old-school writers would have all been against gay marriage? Or that most writers have far more objectionable moral beliefs?

He isn't. Apparently, an Internet post is enough to convince you of this, without any actual facts.

Is that because you consider anyone with right-wing beliefs evil and/or wrong?

By the way, condemning someone because of their political views is a far worse reflection upon you than Mr. Voight.

 

OSC has a right to his opinion and every civilized person on Earth has a right to call him a douchebag. He doesn't have a pro-marriage stance. As for his standing up for his beliefs under strong pressure, great! Him and D.W. Griffith are two of a kind.

 

I never said that people aren't entitled to their own opinion but some people think that having a differing opion is wrong or evil in and of itself.

I can disagree with someone's beliefs without resorting to lowering them as a person. I just think it tells more about you than the person your denigrating.

 

People are too complex to be characterized broadly, over the whole of their life and who they are as a person, as a result of a given political belief. As a rule, anyway. I think there are some exceptions.

But in debates like this, both sides seem to think everyone should adopt their view. If I think OSC's views are enough to make me want to avoid his work, then so should you. If you think they're not significant enough to warrant excluding his work, then so should I. And so on. It's typical of society these days.

 

He believes, as most Christians do, that marriage is a covenant with God between a man and a woman. If you choose to equate that with being a racist, then like I said, it says more about you than him.

 

Beliefs are part of what makes us people. So, yes, judging people as people because they hold beliefs which are not only objectionable, but morally abhorent is what we do. Recently, a man in the US was found to have kept three women as captives for 18 years. I challenge you to think of that without denigrating his personhood.

Likewise, an artist puts himself into his work. To treat the two (his personhood and his art) as two entirely separate things is, in my opinion, to say he is not an artist.

 

Racism (in America) takes its roots in a belief that God created a natural order in which people of one color are to be held dominion over by those of another color. What Justin's analogy says about him is that he has a quick wit and is able to draw clear parallels.

 

I don't feel that way, I agree with OSC's beliefs but I also read Douglas Adams, whom I disagree with politically. I used to listen to the Dixie Chicks, who were very political and I disagreed with them even more.

The problem I have is when you migrate from 'this person has a different opinion than me.' to 'this person is less of a human being because of their beliefs.'

Where's the respect?

I understand everyone has the right to be disrespectful, I'm not arguing that because I have the right to say that it makes you look immature and intolerant.

 

I, myself, am a Christian and gay. But, more to the point, even before I became a Christian, I knew many who did not see homosexuality as a sin. I'm also more than capable of arguing that it is not.

For example, none of the so-called "clobber scriptures" actually hold up to scrutiny. Sodom's sin, for example, is NEVER identified as homosexuality in the Bible. Ezekial states explicitly that Sodom's sin is a lack of care for the poor.

 

Was Jeffrey Dahlmer less of a human being because he thought the best way to serve humanity was with a little bit of barbeque sauce?

Was the Klan less than human because they thought that n****** make good pinnattas?

 

So you're talking about kidnapping, rape, murder and cannibalism in relation to someone who disagrees with you on the sanctity of Judeo-Christian marriage?

It's people like you that I hope never reach any type of position of power. This is not 'tolerance', this is hate, pure and simple.

The next step is to criminalize differing points of view and torture them or kill them unless they 'recant' their heretic views. Sounds very familiar.

He didn't commit a crime and he has done a lot of good for writers throughout his life. He believes differently than you and you should respect his right. Lowering him to criminal or murderer status is far, far worse than anything he has ever said.

 

The respect ends when someone would willingly and actively deny me the right to take care of and protect my loved one after I am gone.

 

Nope. First off, this isn't about the sanctity of Judeo-Christian marriage. I support the sanctity of Judeo-Christian marriage. I, also, support gay marriage (which, depending on the church, can be sanctified Judeo-Christian marriage). Secondly, what this is about is equality.

Yep, I don't accept "diversity" when "diversity" means using the government to treat people as lesser - whether that means slavery or denying marriage. Now, if you are for gay marriage being legal, but not performed in your church, I'm okay with that.

 

Being against marriage equality (kindly don't use the term 'gay marriage' because that's bisexual and pansexual erasure) is being a homophobe. He believes that people like me don't deserve equal rights or protection under the law because of our sexual orientation. He's denying us our equal rights because of our sexual orientation, which is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is homophobia. Plain and simple.

When I read his opinions and words, yes, it makes him a bad person to me. I'm not saying no one else can read him or that everyone has to feel the same way, but I am allowed to feel threatened by his beliefs and think he's horrible because of them, because they affect me directly.

See above point.

Like I said, a personal limit. Hemingway was not nearly as vocal nor politically active (and thus damaging) with his beliefs.

Source, source, source. I could go on.

I don't care what you believe, provided that your beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others. His belief system tries to stop me from getting married. Mine tries to stop him from taking away an equal protection for me.

 

Exactly. Well said.

My own views are completely different than Card's (I support and voted in favor of gay marriage), but dismissing his work on that basis alone strikes me as close-minded, childish, and in Justin Rocket's case, outright hateful.

I mean, this is a guy who is equating being against gay marriage with institutionalized racism and a mass-murdering cannibal! How much more ridiculous can this conversation get?

Anywho, can we get back on topic, please? It's annoying that this thread has been hijacked by people with a political ax to grind.

Edit-

Endlessly repeating this as if it's a fact doesn't make it so. A homophobe is someone who hates and fears gays. How can a homophobe have a gay best friend? They can't.

We get it, though; anyone who disagrees with you on the social issue of gay marriage is an awful, horrible piece of shit that is worse than an actual criminal. Just like you're dismissing a lot of great literature because of this, you're also dismissing and condemning a lot of otherwise good people.

 

Wow. What about his writing could possibly make you 'hate' it with a passion? I mean, you could say War and Peace was boring and long, you could say Moby Dick is difficult to slog through but to hate something with a passion? That seems to denote a level of personal issue that goes beyond the writing. I can think of some really horribly written books I have read and some books that were so bad I never finished them but I have never reached a level of passionate hatred for a book I wasn't forced to read by gunpoint.

I hope you were just being overly dramatic.