![]() | |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home | |
By: Matthew Patterson on 3/23/2005; 3:18 PM Let us take, for example, Orson Scott Card. He's an award-winning science fiction writer, the only person to have won both the Hugo and Nebula awards two years in a row, and not undeservedly. The resolution of Ender's Game hit me like a punch to the gut the first time I read it -- I don't think I've ever been more shocked by a piece of literature. And his style is so *good* -- unlike a lot of SF writers, Card's characters all have actual personalities, and they are all of them mixtures of dark and light, sympathy and hatred, much like regular people. The books are good. But how do you reconcile a man who write passages like this: "But when it comes to human beings, the only type of cause that matters is final cause, the purpose. What a person had in mind. Once you understand what people really want, you can't hate them anymore. You can fear them, but you can't hate them, because you can always find the same desires in your own heart." (from Speaker for the Dead) but articles in non-fiction publications like this: "The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally." (in "The Ornery American") and this: "Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. [...] So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage." (in "The Rhinoceros Times"). It bothers me a lot to have supported, however indirectly (I have copies of all the Ender books that I actually paid for myself) a guy who says such awful things, particularly since they're against me personally. I don't know how to reconcile this, as usually when authors are that homophobic, it shows up in their stories and I can happily avoid reading them. Are the books still good works on their own if the mind which conceived them is so utterly poisoned? (All quotations lifted from the Wikipedia entry on Card. If they're found to be inaccurate, I'll edit them here.)
By: Mark Morgan on 3/24/2005; 1:14 AM This is interesting, since one of my favorite web comics, Something Positive, just addressed this issue. (Start here.) Ultimately? I separate the author and the work. Wagner's music is magnificent even if he was a racist. I think you'll find that a *lot* of the artists you like in a lot of venues are people you wouldn't hang out with.
By: Matthew Patterson on 3/24/2005; 2:46 AM Well, I also have the same problem with Wagner, though that's aided by the fact that I'm actually not all that fond of his music either. But it's a frustrating thought puzzle: How can any artist create some works that are so... I don't know, life-affirming, so postively humanistic, and turn around and make others that are so opposite? And more pragmatically, do I really want to subsidize him doing it? I'm thinking the answer is probably no, which is why all my copies of the Ender books are now for sale on half.com.
By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 3/27/2005; 4:33 PM I've had the same issue with Card, not to mention his borderline sexism. Still, beauty can be formed by flawed hands. Thus I am not selling my Card books. I don't see how reselling them isn't subsidizing them anyway.
By: Matthew Patterson on 3/27/2005; 11:48 PM Well, reselling them at least gets me some of my money back. You're right, though; it's mostly a symbolic gesture.
By: Richard Davidson on 4/1/2005; 3:32 AM You can like an artist who is the scum of the Earth. A person's disgusting personality doesn't make their art any less valid. If you can go back through those books you like and find the message you are so disgusted by hidden between the lines, then you have discovered a fatal flaw, and should dismiss this person's art. If you can't, then you shouldn't. I have never read this guy, but then I think most science fiction writers are about stupid anyway. I mean, have you ever read a romance or sex scene in a Heinlein book? The only thought that comes to mind is "this guy has never had good sex in his life." See? I don't read homophobes, so I won't be picking up any Card books in the near future, and I'm not fond of sexists either. That being said, if one wrote something incredible, I guess I'd be stuck with it, but science fiction never approaches anything like that. Like, if I found out that William Blake was a disgusting pervert that tortured Kitty Cats, I don't think that would take anything away from my enjoyment. Louis Carrol may have bordered on pedophilia. That is very unsettling to me, but the images from the Alice books have been with me since childhood. No flaws in Carrol are going to take his art away from me, but if he was around today, I'd probably send him threatening emails. Seperate the man from the art. But don't be afraid to take a stand in not supporting people you find repugnant. Fair enough? Incidentally, I still enjoy Jim Morrison, even though he had a pretty screwed up attitude about life. As for Wagner, I haven't heard any racism in his music.
By: Chie Theresa Fujioka on 4/2/2005; 2:22 PM i wouldnt say card has any homophobia in Ender.. although he just purely omits the existence of homosexuality. The sexism is far more minimal than most fantasy/scifi writers, but because the rest of the book is so good, I can't help but be more severe in expectations. However, one of my favorite things about well-written fantasy/scifi is the authors do not necessarily shy away from uber-kinky sex scenes/acts of domination(or sub)/women in vinyl/powerful women in vinyl. Obviously that is an important part of a good story, e.g. Morgan le Fay, Hyzenthlay, Cleopatra, Shahrazad. After all, one of the beauties of written work is the ability to forgo taboo, and just write.. a story.
By: Matthew Patterson on 4/2/2005; 5:08 PM i wouldnt say card has any homophobia in Ender.. although he just purely omits the existence of homosexuality. That's not homophobia in and of itself? If he omitted the existence of women, or black people, would that not be sexist or racist? He actually gets a little more blatant about it in the Ender's Shadow books, which is where I started to get really turned off by his attitudes.
By: Brian Webber on 4/4/2005; 12:23 AM If he omitted the existence of women, or black people, would that not be sexist or racist? Well, I don't know. I'm reading the Foundation Trilogy again, and things like race and sexuality never seem to come up at all, except in the context of power mad dictators wanting male heirs. I don't think of Foundation as being racist or homophobic. We could argue about it being sexist; Bayta Darell and Arkady are practically feminist icons the way they take matters into their own hands and are generlaly smarter than the men around them.
Join Us! (|What is membership?|)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
![]() |
|