Orson Scott Card and gays

[Soulreaverm]

That's fine, but I can tell you you're missing out. For science fiction books, there is a lot of religious discussion. But it is always presented as a reasonable discussion between those with different views. Each side is given fairly equal merit, and in fact it is normally the main characters who have no religious beliefs. It's obvious what side the author is on, but opposing views are not dismissed. This is mainly seen in the Shadow series, which is notable in that it has important characters with at least five different ideologies that I can think of, and none is portrayed as good or evil based on their beliefs.

There is no discussion of homosexuality that I can remember, and definitely nothing negative. It was strange for me to read his books which present so many viewpoints, and then to find out that the author's own viewpoints were so fixed and so far removed from those of most of his characters.

 

[GloatingSwine]

I've never read anything by Orson Scott Card before.

He wrote a good short story once, but it went to his head, and everything else he's written since has been a shallow cash in on that.

 

[manicfoot]

I don't see what the big deal is. Why isn't he allowed to think that gay marriage is wrong? Its not like he goes out in the street and kicks gay people to death is it? I'm all for gay marriage myself in case you were wondering.

 

[dantheman931]

I don't see what the big deal is. Why isn't he allowed to think that gay marriage is wrong? Its not like he goes out in the street and kicks gay people to death is it? I'm all for gay marriage myself in case you were wondering.

I'ma say it again: I'm not trying to abridge his right to free speech. But just as he has a right to say whatever he wants, I have a right to not listen when he says it.

I take the easy route and try to avoid learning ANYTHING about people who make stuff I enjoy. When I learn stuff, it doesn't change my opinions though.

You know what? I still love Braveheart and Mel Gibson movies, and I'll buy them as long as they continue to be good. I don't have to give two shits whether or not he's anti-Semitic, because as long as he doesn't stick in the movie the words FUCK JEWS in on the credits then it doesn't affect the quality of the movie. I once had someone try to convince me that 20,000 BC is anti-Semitic propoganda. Sorry, but no dice. Mel Gibson may be a jerk for hating Jews, but that doesn't make his movies not worth watching.

Also: the guy that plays Magneto is gay. The navigator dude from the first Star Trek is gay. Does that make them, or their portrayals of their characters, any less awesome? NO.

Mel Gibson made Apocalypto, not 10,000 BC. That was Roland Emmerich, and it sucked hard, by the way. Also, would it be inappropriate to point out that Ian McKellen was an early choice to take over as Dumbledore?

 

[scotth266]

I snip my own quote!

Mel Gibson made Apocalypto, not 10,000 BC. That was Roland Emmerich, and it sucked hard, by the way. Also, would it be inappropriate to point out that Ian McKellen was an early choice to take over as Dumbledore?

Ah, sorry. Got the titles mixed up in my head. I meant Apocalypto, of course. And I'm not convinced Dumbledore was gay. McKellen would have been AWESOME as him though.

 

[Zac_Dai]

Thinking about it all, I think it would be easier to end marriage as legal status altogether.

It has no real use in modern society and it was only developed as a way of owning women as property and thus making them a commodity to be traded.

This would solve all problems as then marriage would become a private affair with no stupid government legislation.

 

[NeutralDrow]

I snip my own quote!

Mel Gibson made Apocalypto, not 10,000 BC. That was Roland Emmerich, and it sucked hard, by the way. Also, would it be inappropriate to point out that Ian McKellen was an early choice to take over as Dumbledore?

Ah, sorry. Got the titles mixed up in my head. I meant Apocalypto, of course. And I'm not convinced Dumbledore was gay. McKellen would have been AWESOME as him though.

All we have is the word of the author. Aside from some implications in the last book, it never really comes up.

 

[dantheman931]

True. If Dumbledore really was supposed to be gay, she would have said so long before the last book came out. Or she waited because she was afraid that she'd lose sales if word got out that one of the characters was *ga-ga-gasp!* gay. Either way, fail.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

Dan, if someone has beliefs that you find abhorrent, it is your right to ignore his works. I never agreed with Heinlein and his views were very prevalent in his work, but that never affected my ability to enjoy his work. He wasn't a seething bigot either, though. I feel that as long as the author keeps that aspect of their life separate from their writing you should at least be able to enjoy their writing. Mel Gibson himself is a bigot, but he still has done some very good films with a poignant message. It's always sad when obviously brilliant minds fall victim to such simplistic and backward ideas.

Ken MacLeod is another good example, too. While I don't necessarily agree with all of his viewpoints, I think they really enrich his writing. One cool thing that he did that I really enjoyed was in the book Dark Light one of the main characters was a homosexual who was characterized in a very favorable light. More things like that need to happen in books.

So, you gotta take the good with the bad. For every progressive writer trying to paint alternative lifestyles in a positive light, you have two more trying to do the opposite. And that is the price of free speech.

 

[Sarkule]

His books are really awesome, (such as the Ender series)
And I didn't notice anything anti gay marriage in the books, so there wouldn't be anything like that to offend you.
You can read his stuff, doesn't mean you have to agree with him!
And they're definently worth reading!

 

[Bellvedere]

Che Guevara was homophobic and racist but people still wear shirts with his face on it.

It's your choice really, won't be the end of the world if you don't, doesn't mean you are homophobic if you do. I don't think that there are many people that would judge you morally for your decision to read a book (people still read Mein Kampf after all - not so much for entertainment though) but if you would think less of yourself for doing so, you probably shouldn't. Also if you're feeling guilty about the whole thing you probably won't like the book.

Personally I might still read it but I would be trying to hate it in my head which I would probably enjoy just as much as if I really loved the book so... take from that what you will.

 

[Rylot]

Fitzgerald was a drunk. Hemingway was a drunk who killed himself. Reading is not a passive act. The reader filters the thoughts and ideas presented in the literature and ultimately decides how to inter that information. The quality of the individual is wholly independant to the quality of the work or what a reader can gain from it. Even reading books that you completely disagree with can be a good mental exercise in why you disagree with that point of view.

As for Card if you like Sci fi then his work is a corner stone in the genre and not to be missed. Not saying you have no right to boycott his work but you don't have to agree with every political belief of an author to enjoy their work.

 

[Ftaghn To You Too]

If you refuse to read his books because he's a wackjob, you're missing out. Ender's Game is a truly fine book.

Yes, he's a loony for his beliefs. Lovecraft was

A: A racist who filled his books with slurs and insults, hated gays, hated games, and was a general dick.

B: The most influential horror writer of the 20th century, beloved by billions.

Personal beliefs do not make a bad book.

 

[Miumaru]

Che Guevara was homophobic and racist but people still wear shirts with his face on it.

It's your choice really, won't be the end of the world if you don't, doesn't mean you are homophobic if you do. I don't think that there are many people that would judge you morally for your decision to read a book (people still read Mein Kampf after all - not so much for entertainment though) but if you would think less of yourself for doing so, you probably shouldn't. Also if you're feeling guilty about the whole thing you probably won't like the book.

Personally I might still read it but I would be trying to hate it in my head which I would probably enjoy just as much as if I really loved the book so... take from that what you will.

I dont think most of the people who wear his face around actually know shit about him.

 

[SturmDolch]

I'm atheist, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying J.R.R. Tolkien's beautiful world. He was a devout Catholic and the stories draw many parallels with the bible. I don't mind; it's another point to consider and think about while reading the book. Knowing the author's character should enhance the reading, not hinder it. Of course, it's your choice. But reading something does not mean you have to agree with it. It should only provoke thought.

 

[SimpleChimp]

Wow. I am a supporter of Gay Marriage, and a huge fan os OSC. I mean in my eyes he is an amazing sci fi writer and has done alot for my work. So he doesn't like Gays, Ford didn't like jews yet people still drive his car. Supporting his work isn't supporting his way of life or views. He is a Mormon, he teaches at a Mormon school (or atleast did) its part of his identity. Why not frag a jewish writer or comedian for not believing in jesus, or for "killing" jesus. Its how he was raised, and part of his beliefs. Does it make me sad that my favorite writer is a bigot? Yes.

Does it mean i will burn my copies of Ender's Game, the Shadow Series, Red Prophet and Empire? Fuck no.

 

[TheBluesader]

This kind of bothers me, but let's keep in mind that Orson Scott Card - like my scifi hero, Robert Heinlein (at least until he died) - is a very old man with a very old man's brain. And old man brains oft times have problems dealing with newfangled ideas such as civil rights for GLBTs, women having jobs, and black people not exclusively employed as guys on train station platforms with funny little hats.

These guys are a product of their times, and as obnoxious as it is that they keep saying things in ours, there's really nothing we can do about it. Except make it clear that we consider them old guys with old guy brains. Ideally in a really condescending voice, so they get the hint that we think they're stupid.

But we can't boycott their books or hate them forever over stuff like this. That just robs us of the opportunity to read what are more-or-less great books, as well as forces us to hate people, which is never fun.

No, I'm not defending Orson or Heinlein or any of the thousands of other really old guys who need to stop using their psuedo-celebrity to yell about things that scare them. But I WILL defend them against book-burnings and crucifixions.

 

[Lullabye]

I don't care about gays or haters, I care about good literature though. So, I will keep on reading his stuff, because it is awesome. I don't understand how one mans opinion on something like gay marriage can affect a story(which is meant for, you know, escapism and stuff)
Plus, he may be against gay marriage, but he sure as hell ain't xenophobic. Which I respect alot more since it's harder to do generally.