Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

[Fox12]

Honestly, hate the man, not the book. Guess what?

1) John Lennon was a wife beater. He was possessive and cruel, and was paranoid his wife would cheat on him, even as he cheated on her. He also admitted to beating his former girlfriends as a younger man. People still listen to the Beatles (though I admittedly don't).

2) Benjamin Franklin also cheated on his wife, and when she was dying her last request was to see him one last time. He denied her. Seriously, the guy was a douche. People still read Poor Richards Almanac, and his advice is still fantastic.

3) Eric Clapton is a racist. People still listen to him. So was Dr. Seuss and...Abraham Lincoln. http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

4) HP Lovecraft. Oh boy, a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, where does it end?

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

6) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had children with one of them, and then sold all the slaves (including his children) in order to pay off his debts. His political ideas concerning liberty are still true, even if he was a hypocrite himself.

7) Everyone know JFK cheated. Not everyone knows he had several women deported out of the country in order to keep it secret.

The point is, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, Ender Wiggin isn't. Ender's game is a fantastic book, and absolutely nothing in it so much as hints at homophobia. The people I mentioned achieved great things, helped people, or produced great works of art, despite doing or believing terrible things. I still love MLK, despite what he did to his wife and family. Card is a product of his generation and upbringing, and while I'll continue to disagree with him on, well, pretty much everything, I'll continue to enjoy his works because their great pieces of fiction completely independent of their writer. I'll probably see the film too, assuming it gets good reviews.

This isn't exactly like those situations. A lot of the things you mentioned were sexual affairs, which I believe is entirely private unless say, JFK or John Lennon or MLK actually killed the women they had affairs with. A lot of the things you mentioned were also representative of the time that these people lived in, Thomas Jefferson for example. As far as I know (not American) all the founding fathers owned slaves.

In Scott Card's case, not only has he dragged his personal views out into the public eye, but he's actively campaigned against homosexuals and for the increasing diminished rights of homosexuals, specifically the right to get married. That makes him far worse than any of the people you mentioned. He even claimed that he would help overthrow the government if gays were allowed to get married. You're perfectly free to enjoy and support his work but speaking personally I would never put money in this man's pocket, especially given what he'll most likely put it towards.

I can understand your point. Again, I'm not supporting the things Card has said or done. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that if I boycott every piece of media or writing because of the author, even if the work in question is rather inoffensive, than there's not much left. It's strange that Ender's Game is primarily a book about tolerance and understanding, when it was written by a bigot. However, my stance is that it is still a book about tolerance and understanding, so I support it regardless.

 

[Jacco]

Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MARRY YOU NOW.

People don't understand that public figures have jobs just like the rest of us. You don't hate your co-workers personally for what they do at work. You hate them (or not) for what kind of people they are. What makes public figures any different?

Politicians get the worst of it. Just cause they support agendas politically that you dislike, doesn't necessarily mean they do so personally. They have obligations to their peers in their parties just like we do to our co-workers.

 

[Kurea]

If the non-homophobic community shows him tolerance, we'll only prove ourselves to be morally superior over him. Does he *want* to be viewed as the unwitting villain in this story? Nobody likes a hypocrite, Card.

 

[Evil Smurf]

A friend of mine *cough* is a against gay marriage, so said friend understands where this writer guy is coming from. Besides what does ideological beliefs have anything to do with products they make?

 

[DjinnFor]

Tell you what Card, I'd happily stop throwing shit at you once you stop spewing shit at everyone else.

Isn't this article basically about him saying he stopped throwing shit at people a while back?

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

It IS childish, BECAUSE he "throws it in". It's bad journalism, and just generally shitty behavior in general.
And you're right, no one is insulting the work... except when that they relate his works to his personal beliefs, which, to date, I have yet to find anything matching. Does anyone in Ender's Game go on a rant about how faggots destroying the sanctity of marriage ruined the Earth economy? Hell, the Homecoming Saga had a gay male as one of the secondary characters, who was treated with respect by the character he confesses to, and the book goes out of its way (literally, it stops plot progression to do this) to draw the reader's sympathy for the character and the bigotry he and others are beset by.

Look, if you don't want to see ender's game because Card is against gay marriage, fine. But I think that's a shitty thing to do. And whether that's true or not, THIS ARTICLE is shameful.

 

[Kurea]

You pay for a ticket to see the movie. Part of your payment goes into his pocket. He uses part of that money to make donations to anti-LGBT organizations. Regardless of how you feel about him or his work, any money you give him he partially gives away to support certain agendas. That's just the way money moves. Now, if he was willing to refuse any earnings he could garner from the box office then this would be a non-issue, we could all just see the movie knowing no whacked out, dogmatic, homophobia-endorsing pamphlets were paid for with our financial contribution, but I doubt that'll be the case.

Card is right though; it's a moot point. Whatever money he makes off of this movie, he can't change the tides of time. So all in all, see it or don't, he knows he's swimming upstream.

 

[barbzilla]

Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

THANK YOU. I WANT TO MARRY YOU NOW.

People don't understand that public figures have jobs just like the rest of us. You don't hate your co-workers personally for what they do at work. You hate them (or not) for what kind of people they are. What makes public figures any different?

Politicians get the worst of it. Just cause they support agendas politically that you dislike, doesn't necessarily mean they do so personally. They have obligations to their peers in their parties just like we do to our co-workers.

Your first bit there is pretty backwards. They dislike him for his bigotry, not his work. Dislike like that shouldn't just go away because we're talking about his work since he gets money from it.

And he personally supports bigotry. No one here has an obligation towards him as a co-worker any such thing, your post is all confused.

If the non-homophobic community shows him tolerance, we'll only prove ourselves to be morally superior over him. Does he *want* to be viewed as the unwitting villain in this story? Nobody likes a hypocrite, Card.

He is tolerated, no one's asking for laws to be made against him. People just don't want to give money or any kind of support to someone who's as bigoted he is, and as vocal about it as he is. It's a bizarrely annoying double standard those of his sort have where they twist the world tolerance so that when it applies to them they expect EVEN MORE than what they're not willing to grant others.

A friend of mine *cough* is a against gay marriage, so said friend understands where this writer guy is coming from. Besides what does ideological beliefs have anything to do with products they make?

It has to do with money going to someone whose ideological beliefs spit on 10% of the population as not deserving of the same rights as the rest of the population.

An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened.

This is disgusting. Seriously. You ought to be ashamed of this.
Card may be a bigoted, small-minded man, but he had the good grace to keep his backwards views out of his writing, and it is shameful that great work is being maligned because of the author's beliefs.
Then you throw this line in. Are you a child? Because this is childish. If you want to write an article calling him a hypocrite, you ought to damn well do it, not sneak in tiny passive-aggressive notes.

Shame on you.

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

Do you dislike paedophiles? Do you read any of Lewis Carroll's work (such as the Alice books)? Do you listen to Dr. Dre? He is a woman beater. How about Tim Allen (Galaxy Quest, Home Improvement, ect)? He was a drug addict who sold his friends down the river for a reduced sentence. Elvis Costello was a racist (as is Kramer from Seinfeld). Marvin Harrison (american football player) is an attempted murder. Chuck Berry was a pervert (as is PeeWee Herman). I could probably go on for quite a while, but the point is, I can almost guarantee that you enjoy some form of entertainment from someone you would probably despise, but because OSC was public about his indiscretion you want to organize a boycott.

My main point here is this, people only seem to be outraged when they are told they should be. Otherwise they don't care enough to look into the source of the things they enjoy. Hell if half the people knew what went on at the farms where they got their meats they would probably go vegan. However when I attempt to tell people about this stuff, they don't want to hear it shortly there after.

If you want to make a statement and not buy his stuff, great. However, don't expect other people to always follow suit. Was what he said/did wrong? Yes! Does it affect the quality of his work? No. Bottom line, if you want to avoid him I will support you. If you try to tell other people they are wrong for not wanting to support him, I will tell you that you are wrong.

 

[Bruce]

snip

Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, or at least not religious in the sense of belonging to any extant religion. So far as we are aware marriage predates history, and thus any religion we know about. Further marriages in earlier societies, such as in ancient Greece, didn't always require much in the way of the blessing of any particular gods.

Further even if your argument held true, for it to have any validity at all one would also have to deny heterosexual atheists the right to marry - which frankly the US government does not do.

Still further, even after banning atheist marriage you would still have to allow gay marriage in religions which allow it - as otherwise you would fall foul of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

 

[barbzilla]

snip

Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, or at least not religious in the sense of belonging to any extant religion. So far as we are aware marriage predates history, and thus any religion we know about. Further marriages in earlier societies, such as in ancient Greece, didn't always require much in the way of the blessing of any particular gods.

Further even if your argument held true, for it to have any validity at all one would also have to deny heterosexual atheists the right to marry - which frankly the US government does not do.

Still further, even after banning atheist marriage you would still have to allow gay marriage in religions which allow it - as otherwise you would fall foul of the establishment clause of the first amendment.

*sigh*

If you look back at my arguments, you will see I admit that marriage as the term predates any modern religions. However, marriage as it exists today (a joining of two people in love) started as an evolution of a pagan rite. I don't really consider what came before that marriage as we know it since it was basically a contract between men for ownership o fwomen. As far as how it originated, nobody actually knows. It could have been religious for all we known. What we do know is that marriage was first recorded in 2500s BC Mesopotamia, a center for pagan religions at the time.

How does anything I say relate to preventing anyone from marrying whomever they choose? All I said is that the religious portion and the political portions need to be separated. You need to go re-read everything I wrote. I don't know why everyone thinks that I am saying that gays shouldn't marry. I am pro-gay marriage.

As for your final statement, I think that the church should be allowed to marry whomever they wish to marry inside their religious beliefs. I also think that the government should have a "legal" marriage or legal joining that should be allowed to any two people who want to be married, granting them all of the legal benefits therein. This means that I support marriage between any couple, I just think that the term is being confused as it is. It has a certain duality about it that needs to be changed. Separating the church and the state portions of marriage is how I think this could be accomplished.

As a fine note: Please take note, I say religion and church, I never say which religion or what church. I don't support organized religion, nor do I think that marriage belongs to any one religion. I still don't know why everyone seems to think that I am A: Against gay marriage and B: christian. I am neither of these things.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

There's a difference between boycotting and maligning something. I'm waiting to see where anyone has said his work is bad for it. And it's not childish to throw it in because it's well worth hinting it. A nut job who talks about revolution in regards to the possibility of gay marriage switching their stance when money is involved later down the line deserves a dig like that.

It IS childish, BECAUSE he "throws it in". It's bad journalism, and just generally shitty behavior in general.
And you're right, no one is insulting the work... except when that they relate his works to his personal beliefs, which, to date, I have yet to find anything matching. Does anyone in Ender's Game go on a rant about how faggots destroying the sanctity of marriage ruined the Earth economy? Hell, the Homecoming Saga had a gay male as one of the secondary characters, who was treated with respect by the character he confesses to, and the book goes out of its way (literally, it stops plot progression to do this) to draw the reader's sympathy for the character and the bigotry he and others are beset by.

Look, if you don't want to see ender's game because Card is against gay marriage, fine. But I think that's a shitty thing to do. And whether that's true or not, THIS ARTICLE is shameful.

It's not about the content of the stuff he writes. It's the fact that Orson Scott Card donates to organizations that oppose gay marriage, so when you buy something of his, you're funding bigotry.

If he just opposed gay marriage, but didn't much of anything beyond vote against it, I probably wouldn't have much of an issue with putting money into his pocket. But I know what he does with that money, so I won't.

 

[comraderichard]

I'm seeing a lot of 'but he doesn't incorporate his hatred into his books' arguments from Card's defenders, which is actually incorrect. Regardless if your personal opinions, Ender's Game was the only book of his to be unambiguously well-received, and even then he incorporated portions of his own beliefs into them. I can't sight you sources but the link does exist that the 'Buggers', the primary antagonist race in the book, were named such because the term apparently referenced sodomy/sodomites. After Ender's Game his writing style devolved to the point where he was either bland or offensive.

The attempt to defend this author is demonstrably disgusting, with people making false equivalences with H.P. Lovecraft (dead for quite a long time now) or Walt Disney (also dead for a rather lengthy period of time) because apparently they don't want to admit to themselves that the man behind something they like is a raging bigot. Or maybe it's the fear of guilt-by-association that has his defenders frothing at the mouth? This man has called for the armed uprising and slaughter of people who don't fit his narrow views of what America should be in the event that truly equal rights ever becomes a thing, he's not some misunderstood victim, he's not the unfortunate target of the political correctness brigade. He's someone who makes money, but makes threatening and downright monstrous comments, and backs some of the worst people society has to offer with his cash that just happened to have a talent for writing that's mysteriously disappeared in his later works.

I will freely admit I'd feel just the slightest bit smug if this fanatical coward ended up suffering at the hands of one of the various national security things we've got in place, but funnily enough his types never seem to get any sort of legal comeuppance. Whenever things for the right-wing (and especially the religious right) go slightly bad they'll screech their collective (funny that) heads off and more often than not get their way unless what they're trying to push goes against every fiber of common decency in the average American's body.

But no, apparently we have to separate that the man behind these works is a vile cretin, who is ALIVE and who has thrown money as hate groups, because some dead guy was racist and his works are popular posthumously (Lovecraft wasn't exactly well-received during the time he was alive, folks). Or because, apparently, the poor rich folks in Hollywood will starve despite already being paid and any money that comes after the fact will just be lining the pockets of investors, who, frankly, could stand to lose a few pounds of dough and a bigoted violent little greedy weasel of a man who is trying to make sure that anyone who doesn't fit into the idea of his Christian America disappears or is treated like freaking animals.

So yes, tell me again how a boycott is childish, explain to me how all the fundies and right-wing nutbars who've protested films on completely baseless and frankly childish reasons are now telling anyone with a shred of respect for their fellow human beings that to do the exact thing they did and still do is somehow childish. It's only 'stupid' because you disagree with it. This man deserves to fail, you could've painted this generation's Mona Lisa for all I care, but if you're still a dangerous bigot I will do everything within my legal rights to make sure you will end up as a failure.

All the 'mature' people snubbing folks off because apparently he's worth the possible discrimination he may have a hand in, ignoring all the heinous things he's said, and how he's funded organizations that seek to ruin the lives of people are in my honest opinion the most childish of them all. I can't even begin to understand their motivations, but I imagine they're pretty flawed.

 

[SuperfastJellyfish]

Of course the spineless worm backs out of it when there's a sign of losing money.

 

[bravetoaster]

I'm seeing a lot of 'but he doesn't incorporate his hatred into his books' arguments from Card's defenders, which is actually incorrect. Regardless if your personal opinions, Ender's Game was the only book of his to be unambiguously well-received, and even then he incorporated portions of his own beliefs into them. I can't sight you sources but the link does exist that the 'Buggers', the primary antagonist race in the book, were named such because the term apparently referenced sodomy/sodomites.

Not really being big into slurs, I thought "Surely 'bugger' isn't some kind of slur," but, yeah, apparently it is/was. For anyone who, like me, was unaware: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bugger
(edit: technically that might not be a slur, but, despite the multitudes of heterosexual mean and women who engage in anal and/or oral sex, I've can't recall ever hearing anyone refer to them as "sodomites"--if that's a common thing, somewhere, please correct me)

I'd still be willing to give him (or anyone, no matter how huge and obnoxiously stupid of a bigot) the benefit of the doubt and say that, without evidence of his intent, this may just be an uncomfortable coincidence, given the lack (to the best of my knowledge) of any other potentially anti-gay elements in the book and the fact that the enemies are insectoid and "buggers" could be used as "annoying things" as well. Although, with how unsubtle and ineptly-written Card's essays are, I admit that I may be giving him entirely too much credit.

Very interesting find and point, though, regardless of Card's intent.

 

[Forty-Two]

I'd be willing to bet all my money that if he didn't need our money he'd be having a completely different reaction right now. Besides, you can't be a bigoted wanker and then expect the people you discriminated against to support you, that's just not how the world works.

 

[Guiltyone]

Of course the spineless worm backs out of it when there's a sign of losing money.

Man, you're just spitting hatred. Don't be like that. It's so sad when people fighting with intolerance and injustice become angry and hateful themselves. Whether or not you like or dislike Card (in this instance) try to express you mind from the position of peace and tolerance, not anger and aggression. This will do much more good to our cause.

All in all, I'm really glad to see so much comments separating Card's public persona from his books, and other calmly expressing their views. Whether you think that he deserves tolerance or not, show it, because when tolerance is denied due to someone "not deserving" it really scarry bigotry, the silent, most powerful one is born.

I'm seeing a lot of 'but he doesn't incorporate his hatred into his books' arguments from Card's defenders, which is actually incorrect. Regardless if your personal opinions, Ender's Game was the only book of his to be unambiguously well-received, and even then he incorporated portions of his own beliefs into them. I can't sight you sources but the link does exist that the 'Buggers', the primary antagonist race in the book, were named such because the term apparently referenced sodomy/sodomites. After Ender's Game his writing style devolved to the point where he was either bland or offensive.

First of all, Speaker for the Dead is at least as good as Ender's Game. Secondly... what???? Are you serious? Buggers is an euphemism for sodomy??? For real??? Like, insect race called Buggers is actually secret gay people? WHAT??? You must be kidding or something.