Artist Quits Superman Book Over Orson Scott Card Furor
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Hopefully Shadow Complex 2 wont be Shadow Complex 2. While I thought it was a good game gameplay-wise, I thought the story was kinda crap. Having read the supposed tie-in book (which had almost jack to do with the game), I dont think I want to see anymore of that particular universe.Jackel86 said:
Well, I think an argument could be made that may substantiate the idea that Card is looking after interests other than, and even greater than, his own.DVS BSTrD said:
That much could be inferred from his published works. At the same time, I think, it would cement him as quite delusional, and possibly schizophrenic.
If you're interested, I could go into it, but if you're convinced he's evil and has no moral ground of his own to stand on, then I won't bother.
He isn't the man who wrote Speaker for the Dead anymore.Thistlehart said:
That Card was comfortable with sex and could write about two people having sex for pleasure. And even some same-sex romantic stuff.
And then years passed, and Card got in with the Nuns, and then we got Ender's Shadow, which spawned the god-awful Shadow series (staring Bean) where Card could no longer call sex "sex". Or even making love. He could only call it "Making Babies". This wasn't just one character, it was ALL characters talking about sex. And all his female characters were suddenly pregnancy machines, interested only in becoming pregnant so they could have children.
Petra, of Ender's Game, talking about "Making Babies" that way, made me physically ill.
I hate the Shadows series. It is homophobic misogynistic drivel.
And then Card wrote that book that takes place between the last couple of chapters of Ender's game. And the female characters in that book do exactly the same thing.
Speaker for the Dead Card is dead. I don't know what Doppelganger is currently occupying his corpse, but he's anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-good-writing.
Well, I did use the terms "delusional" and "possibly schizophrenic," so I'm right there with you.DVS BSTrD said:
However, I offer you a quote for a quote.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. This may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not, then you can kill him without hate--and quickly." --Robert A. Heinlein
Heinlein also had several poignant things to say about self-deception, which I think bear out in this case.
I haven't heard that though, at least it not being the primary reason. Most of the outcry is not about his capabilities as a writer but that he uses his financial gain as a writer to influence oppressive actions.Desert Punk said:
I agree. The reason Sprouse has backed out of the comic is because very few people will buy it thanks to OSC's beliefs, which would end up hurting any royalties he received from its creation. Even artists need to make a living. The effect of DC siding with the artist means the chances of this particular issue coming out, if ever, look rather slim.Friv said:
Everyone has a right to their own opinions, just as everyone has a right to ignore those opinions and stop enabling the people who spread them.
Oh fuck me, I read Ender's Games without realizing that the author was a massive bigoted asshole. Well, hopefully nobody works with this piece of shit and his story doesn't ever see the light of day.
My basic attitude on the subject is that boycotting someone's work for being anti-gay is the same as doing it because it's pro-gay. When it gets down to the sentiments of the writers which might not even come up in the specific works being discussed, it just gets ridiculous. It's a situation where I think people need to just grow up and accept that people disagree with them, on both sides. If I went around and boycotted everything out there that was pro-gay in some way (which I hardly am) I'd miss a lot of good stuff. Ditto when it comes to authors who are just generally off their rockers whacked. If half the stories I've heard about Alan Moore are true for example, I think him being an oddball goes beyond having an opinion on sexual orientation.
I find it kind of backwards to argue that people should malign people's writing (like say Ender's game), due to the politics of the guy writing it which may or may not even be involved in the story.
As far as the situation with Superman goes, unless the story had something to do with sexual orientation, the way it seems to me is that this QQing is just costing people a good story. The situation would be like me, someone who is hardly pro-gay, refusing to have anything to do with the writings/productions of say Neil Gaiman or Clive Barker or on a comics related front perhaps Grant Morrison. I might not agree with it's central politics but something like "The Invisibles" was an okay (if not my favorite) comic series and pretty entertaining for example.
While I understand there is a tendency for people solidly on one side of things to want to cheer for someone apparently "standing up" for their principles, there is a point where it's done in a bad place. This is exactly the kind of "victory" you don't want, and what snowballs into making things nastier when the inevitable backlash happens, especially on issues like this where there isn't exactly a clear majority.
Speaking for myself, I've had increasingly less faith in DC over the years and to me this entire thing smacks of a PR stunt more than anything. Given some of the stories I've read over the years about the relationships between comic publishers, writers, and artists, if this kind of insubordination happened off the cuff, the writer would be "thrown under the bus" no matter what stance it took and would have to find another job right quick. What's more finding an artist willing to take on a contreversial story from any angle usually isn't difficult since there are people who are pretty much dying for any work, and like it or not this story is going to get their name out there, and it's pretty
easy to seperate the artist from approval with the story. My gut feeling is the entire "story" being circulated here is simply to get attention and generate hype for when they inevitably release the story, and have people lining up to see what all the fuss was about. Not to mention to see if they can actually provoke an anti-gay backlash (unlikely to happen but always something that can be attempted) to simply get attention. DC hasn't exactly been "keeping it classy" for a long time now.
That's my thoughts at any rate, not that I expect a lot of people to agree with me on these forums.
I find it kind of backwards to argue that people should malign people's writing (like say Ender's game), due to the politics of the guy writing it which may or may not even be involved in the story.
As far as the situation with Superman goes, unless the story had something to do with sexual orientation, the way it seems to me is that this QQing is just costing people a good story. The situation would be like me, someone who is hardly pro-gay, refusing to have anything to do with the writings/productions of say Neil Gaiman or Clive Barker or on a comics related front perhaps Grant Morrison. I might not agree with it's central politics but something like "The Invisibles" was an okay (if not my favorite) comic series and pretty entertaining for example.
While I understand there is a tendency for people solidly on one side of things to want to cheer for someone apparently "standing up" for their principles, there is a point where it's done in a bad place. This is exactly the kind of "victory" you don't want, and what snowballs into making things nastier when the inevitable backlash happens, especially on issues like this where there isn't exactly a clear majority.
Speaking for myself, I've had increasingly less faith in DC over the years and to me this entire thing smacks of a PR stunt more than anything. Given some of the stories I've read over the years about the relationships between comic publishers, writers, and artists, if this kind of insubordination happened off the cuff, the writer would be "thrown under the bus" no matter what stance it took and would have to find another job right quick. What's more finding an artist willing to take on a contreversial story from any angle usually isn't difficult since there are people who are pretty much dying for any work, and like it or not this story is going to get their name out there, and it's pretty
easy to seperate the artist from approval with the story. My gut feeling is the entire "story" being circulated here is simply to get attention and generate hype for when they inevitably release the story, and have people lining up to see what all the fuss was about. Not to mention to see if they can actually provoke an anti-gay backlash (unlikely to happen but always something that can be attempted) to simply get attention. DC hasn't exactly been "keeping it classy" for a long time now.
That's my thoughts at any rate, not that I expect a lot of people to agree with me on these forums.
Good. It's great to see public opinion shifting in this way and corporations taking into consideration just how such things can affect business.
It's a shame they can't just fire him for legal reasons, they will have to actually publish something of his, see it bomb then remove him for poor sales when they can already see it coming.
It's a shame they can't just fire him for legal reasons, they will have to actually publish something of his, see it bomb then remove him for poor sales when they can already see it coming.