I saw a discussion of this a few days ago, and somebody mentioned that he's right - he's not a homophobe. He's a bigot. His attitude toward homosexuals is studied, calcutated and thought-out. He doesn't accept it as a fact of life, he actively goes out and seeks supporting evidence and like-minded people for his point of view, and writes long, rambling screeds on Why Homosexuality Will Bring About The End Times, or whatev. I find this far more appalling than people who have knee-jerk reactions because they don't know any better or have never been taught.
I actually think he's both. There is such a thing as anti-gay bigotry that isn't homophobic -- that's just flippant and knee-jerk and rests on an unexamined assumption of the deviance/inferiority of homosexuality, but that perceives it as more of an annoyance or an absurdity than a threat. Card is positively *terrified.* The fear drips off everything he writes -- from a fear of his children being kicked out of schools for being insufficiently gay-positive to the fear that America will collapse because, I can't remember, no one will want to join the military to support a government that takes away their right to moral superiority. I mean, it's all the bizarre rantings of one of that particular brand of right-winger that sees danger, conspiracy, and enemies everywhere. It's about nothing but fear.
Oh, and also, a lot of his former fans now wouldn't buy one of his books if it came with a lifetime's supply of cool shoes and lubricant, so it's not been a great boon to his career, either.
Very true. Ages ago I had "Ender's Game" on my somewhat vague list of "classic SF that I might like to read someday" but I never got around reading anything by OSC, and he's been crossed off my list for good for a while now.
It's really unfortunate, because many of his books are truly great. I never feel quite right warning people off his work because he himself is an asshole -- I mean, at that rate, a lot of the world's great works of art wouldn't exist, and I'm not sure any of us would be the better off for it. But I personally can't read him anymore; this kind of stuff is just all I can think about. Which isn't fair to his work, but I guess there's just unfairness all over the world, isn't there?
Especially with still living authors who get a percentage from my money when I buy their stuff it really makes a difference to me whether or not I object to them. And with sf/fantasy I usually end up buying what I read, because my local library doesn't have a good sf/fantasy selection in English (and I avoid reading translations if I know the original language). And well, with my very limited funds for books I'd rather they end up with someone I don't regret paying.
Actually, on that one you're in luck; I live in a non-English-speaking country, and even I can usually find Ender's Game in a used book store if they have any sci fi in English at all. Buying used takes a lot of the moral dilemma out of it -- for me, at least; it makes it less of a 'how does it affect the writer', because he'll never really feel it even in that tiny way, and more 'do I want this thing to live in my brain'. Of course, someone else who can't find the used copy you bought might then buy it new, but that's a bit too advanced for me...
(I'd suggest yes on that last part, by the way; it's a very interesting book.)
Curiosity: You Mormon (or any mormon family or big exposure to the religion)? I ask because Memory of Earth a retelling of the Book of Mormon- pretty much exactly, down to the character's *names*, I shit you not- and it's pretty impossible to miss if you have any background in the religion. I'm curious if you liked it *despite* that or oblivious to that
( ... )
I didn't know that about Memory of Earth! I wish I had; I'm always interested in that kind of project, the reworking of significant myths into new formats.
I know what you mean about the sense of betrayal. I just keep wanting to go up to him and be like, "Speaker for the Dead -- SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD!!!" Did he *read* the fucking book? That's actually why I think of him as qualitatively less sane than the average bigot; I think the amount of cognitive dissonance it must require to be theoretically for all the things Card is theoretically for, and yet to put them all in abeyance at the sight of certain triggers -- there's just no way to look at that except as a type of insanity.
I felt the same way, btw, when I found out Paul Haggis was a Scientologist. I just kept imagining trying to explain to Fraser what a "suppressive person" is, and it honestly made me want to cry.
Paul Haggis? Seriously? Yeah. Wow. Gah. It's so hard when you respect an artistic work and respect someone as the creator of that work and then realize that you can't seem to respect them *as a person*. It sucks.
(Though, imagining Fraser's reaction to that conversation is fairly entertaining)
I shall have to ask my parents how their son being able to marry has lowered the quality of their marriage. I´m sure it was devastating to their marriage, really.
Well, I posted a little rant upthread about what the "threat to marriage" really involves. Suffice it to say, nobody thinks your parents' marriage specifically will be damaged. They just think that they will be less able to convince future generations that they have no choice but to marry heterosexually and monogamously and bear children, and they really, desperately want people to have no choice in that matter. The threat to marriage is a threat to *compulsory* heterosexual marriage, and they're quite right about it -- we are trying to take away their power to compel that. They like having that power and the validation it brings, and they don't want to surrender it. Fair enough.
They're going to have to, however. Hell, if George Wallace learned to deal with modernity, so can Orson Scott Card.
I am, in retrospect, glad that my earlier poverty and die-hard cheapness means that I don't think I've ever bought a Card book new, only used. And grateful that by the time I realized, "Oh, if I want to really support an author I like, I should buy their books new" (I was slow, what can I say), I also realized I wouldn't buy a Card book new if you paid me. So to speak.
I do wonder how much his openness about his beliefs in this case has cost him professionally. I mean, clearly he still has a fine career, but it definitely seems like he's paying a price -- for example, the pretty vocal protests over his lifetime achievement award for young adult literature. I suppose you have to admire someone for having convictions even at personal cost. I mean, it's a pity that his main conviction is that war > legalized gay marriage, but hey, a lot of people don't believe anything at all.
And I agree about admiring the courage of his convictions, in a general way. I've felt similarly about the Catholic church wrt women in the priesthood and abortion/death penalty issues, where their position is at least consistent, unlike many fundamentalists. But I think Card's conviction is undermined by what I see as a deeply flawed understanding of core Christian doctrine, to me -- but a lot of Christians agree with him, so... Fortunately, a lot of us don't, as well.
Comments 25
I saw a discussion of this a few days ago, and somebody mentioned that he's right - he's not a homophobe. He's a bigot. His attitude toward homosexuals is studied, calcutated and thought-out. He doesn't accept it as a fact of life, he actively goes out and seeks supporting evidence and like-minded people for his point of view, and writes long, rambling screeds on Why Homosexuality Will Bring About The End Times, or whatev. I find this far more appalling than people who have knee-jerk reactions because they don't know any better or have never been taught.
Also: hi. You don't actually know me.
Reply
Also: hi! Thanks for coming by.
Reply
Very true. Ages ago I had "Ender's Game" on my somewhat vague list of "classic SF that I might like to read someday" but I never got around reading anything by OSC, and he's been crossed off my list for good for a while now.
Also, I had no idea that he was *this* crazy.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(I'd suggest yes on that last part, by the way; it's a very interesting book.)
Reply
Reply
I know what you mean about the sense of betrayal. I just keep wanting to go up to him and be like, "Speaker for the Dead -- SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD!!!" Did he *read* the fucking book? That's actually why I think of him as qualitatively less sane than the average bigot; I think the amount of cognitive dissonance it must require to be theoretically for all the things Card is theoretically for, and yet to put them all in abeyance at the sight of certain triggers -- there's just no way to look at that except as a type of insanity.
I felt the same way, btw, when I found out Paul Haggis was a Scientologist. I just kept imagining trying to explain to Fraser what a "suppressive person" is, and it honestly made me want to cry.
Reply
(Though, imagining Fraser's reaction to that conversation is fairly entertaining)
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
They're going to have to, however. Hell, if George Wallace learned to deal with modernity, so can Orson Scott Card.
Reply
(icon directed at Card, btw)
Reply
I do wonder how much his openness about his beliefs in this case has cost him professionally. I mean, clearly he still has a fine career, but it definitely seems like he's paying a price -- for example, the pretty vocal protests over his lifetime achievement award for young adult literature. I suppose you have to admire someone for having convictions even at personal cost. I mean, it's a pity that his main conviction is that war > legalized gay marriage, but hey, a lot of people don't believe anything at all.
Reply
And I agree about admiring the courage of his convictions, in a general way. I've felt similarly about the Catholic church wrt women in the priesthood and abortion/death penalty issues, where their position is at least consistent, unlike many fundamentalists. But I think Card's conviction is undermined by what I see as a deeply flawed understanding of core Christian doctrine, to me -- but a lot of Christians agree with him, so... Fortunately, a lot of us don't, as well.
Reply
Leave a comment