Shadow Complex Prompts Difficult Questions
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you ever hold an artist, or anyone, accountable for their personal views, then you deny the world of a gift.nilcypher said:
Hitler made some great paintings, Lovecraft was almost every -ist you could think of, Germaine Greer has said she'd remove testicles from all males, Jeremy Clarkson said lorry drivers kill prostitutes...
Look at it this way: Are you going to stop eating soft-scoop icecream because one of the chemists that discovered it shut down England's mines, took us to war over the Falklands and removed milk from schools?
I don't think gamers have a hard time with this idea, I think that the idea of "it's only a game" is the idea. Period.
I agree with the sentiments everybody else here is expressing, its a non issue really. If the game was scott cards gay thumper then it would be definitely be boycott material, but the fact that one artist who worked on game created by many has views that dont seem to mesh with the liberal gamer croud isnt much of a reason to boycott it. Going by that logic you could avoid buying alot of games, just incase somebody on the dev team was a closest neo nazi.
More over, if your worried about your money getting in the hands of unsavory people then maybe you should be more concerned about other things you spend money on. Your taxes probably pay the wages of plenty of people with views you wouldnt like. They also fund armys and arms dealers. The fuel you put in your car could coming from Nigeria, a country where mismanagement and exploitation of resources is rife, leaving the local populace in a terrible state. Money goes around, you can only do so much to stop it from going to people you dont want it to go to.
More over, if your worried about your money getting in the hands of unsavory people then maybe you should be more concerned about other things you spend money on. Your taxes probably pay the wages of plenty of people with views you wouldnt like. They also fund armys and arms dealers. The fuel you put in your car could coming from Nigeria, a country where mismanagement and exploitation of resources is rife, leaving the local populace in a terrible state. Money goes around, you can only do so much to stop it from going to people you dont want it to go to.
As long as it's not pointing out in the game that gay marriage is wrong, who gives a flying duck turd? A game should be criticised by its own merits, not by its creators. It's like how children are judged and treated in different ways cause what their parents have done.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know Orson Scott Card was such an asshole. Here's a quote from him that pretty much sums it up (from wikipedia):
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
Makes me want to puke. Good thing I never actually bought any of his books, he doesn't deserve my money. (I have read his books, but not bought em, I would never willingly and knowingly give money to a bigot asshole like that)
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
Makes me want to puke. Good thing I never actually bought any of his books, he doesn't deserve my money. (I have read his books, but not bought em, I would never willingly and knowingly give money to a bigot asshole like that)
Personally, I love Card's books. Ender's Game was easily my favorite book in middle school.
That being said, I'm not going to throw away the book because I disagree with him. If he believes that trash then so be it. It's his right. Heck, Hannity and Beck say that and worse on a daily basis. Another of my favorite writers, Steven Brust, is a Trotsky Communist. I don't agree with him either, but I darn well love his books.
As much as you or I may disagree with him, he has a right to believe what he believes. Ignoring a wonderful work like Ender's Game simply because I disagree with him is overly sensitive in my estimation. Shadow Complex should receive the same consideration if it is good.
That being said, I'm not going to throw away the book because I disagree with him. If he believes that trash then so be it. It's his right. Heck, Hannity and Beck say that and worse on a daily basis. Another of my favorite writers, Steven Brust, is a Trotsky Communist. I don't agree with him either, but I darn well love his books.
As much as you or I may disagree with him, he has a right to believe what he believes. Ignoring a wonderful work like Ender's Game simply because I disagree with him is overly sensitive in my estimation. Shadow Complex should receive the same consideration if it is good.
I'm bisexual, don't believe in marriage as an institution outright (so gay marriage is fine to me, I think it's just as pointless as regular marriage), and read many works of Orson Scott Card, such as Ender's Game and its sequels, and a number of his other works such as Songmaster (which has homosexual themes and even sexual conduct; even if he considered such to be a scene marking the start of a destructive path, he is not hostile to homosexuality).
In short, this is an issue being blown out of proportion. To summarise:
OSC is entitled to his opinion; that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, as that is a violation of the religious tenets that support marriage. He believes it is a violation of the institution.
Christian Nutt wants to boycott Shadow Complex as it was written partially by OSC. He believes that purchasing a work made by someone who publicly denounces this is condoning them, or at the very least supporting their view. He's entitled to this opinion. He's also entitled to write essays on it and post it to the internet.
I believe they're both wrong. I take the controversial stance that marriage is an outdated and irrelevant institution, its connection to government and tax policies should be absolutely scrapped (as couples usually receive tax benefits over single people), and it thus becomes entirely a church-by-church basis as to whether homosexual marriages are recognised or not. I'm entitled to this opinion, regardless of how outlandish it may seem in light of anyone else's views.
I won't be buying Shadow Complex myself, but that's just because I don't have an Xbox 360 and hadn't actually heard of it until now!
In short, this is an issue being blown out of proportion. To summarise:
OSC is entitled to his opinion; that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, as that is a violation of the religious tenets that support marriage. He believes it is a violation of the institution.
Christian Nutt wants to boycott Shadow Complex as it was written partially by OSC. He believes that purchasing a work made by someone who publicly denounces this is condoning them, or at the very least supporting their view. He's entitled to this opinion. He's also entitled to write essays on it and post it to the internet.
I believe they're both wrong. I take the controversial stance that marriage is an outdated and irrelevant institution, its connection to government and tax policies should be absolutely scrapped (as couples usually receive tax benefits over single people), and it thus becomes entirely a church-by-church basis as to whether homosexual marriages are recognised or not. I'm entitled to this opinion, regardless of how outlandish it may seem in light of anyone else's views.
I won't be buying Shadow Complex myself, but that's just because I don't have an Xbox 360 and hadn't actually heard of it until now!
I'm going to post this quote again, just to stress that his views are not simply about disallowing gay marriage, but about restricting peoples sexual freedom, i.e. bigotry.
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." (my bold)
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society." (my bold)
If the person who is opposed to gay marriage has any kind of political influence, then that might make me stop and think before buying the game. (I'm not opposed to gay marriage) however, if its just his opinion and he's not doing anything to try and impose that opinion in law, then I can't see any reason why it can do harm to buy it.
This is pretty much my reasoning, HP Lovecraft was a notorious antisemite and Edgar Allen Poe was into his necrophilia, and William Golding (lord of the Flies) was an admitted rapist. reprehensible all of it but doesnt mean I am not going to enjoy their literatureResistance205 said:
I read Ender's Game. It's worth purchasing, regardless of Mr.Card's views on the gay community.
The same would go for Shadow Complex. You don't base your purchasing decision of a product on what the creator's viewpoints on issues are, unless he's actively inserting them into/onto his product.
Let's say that a baker, who is an expert at his craft, is a homophobe. Should I stop buying cakes from him because I don't like his stance on the gay community? No, I shouldn't, not unless he starts putting anti-gay propaganda on his boxes/cakes.
The same would go for Shadow Complex. You don't base your purchasing decision of a product on what the creator's viewpoints on issues are, unless he's actively inserting them into/onto his product.
Let's say that a baker, who is an expert at his craft, is a homophobe. Should I stop buying cakes from him because I don't like his stance on the gay community? No, I shouldn't, not unless he starts putting anti-gay propaganda on his boxes/cakes.
Necrophilia isn't evil, imo, because you aren't harming anyone (unless relatives find out what you are doing to the corpse, that would cause emotional harm, hence it's evil if you let them find out, and not evil if they don't find out). Antisemitism on the other hand is a form bigotry and is indeed harmful to others = evil.Pipotchi said:
So what if Card isn't for Gay Marriage? If it doesn't damage any of his books or the game, then I don't see why I should boycott his works.
Perhaps but the game has nothing to do with anti-gay messages. In this case it really is just a game and can't be held accountable by this mans social veiws because they aren't present in it.harhol said:
You're not really punishing Hitler either, he's dead.harhol said:
Because last time I checked, Freedom of Speech was still on the American Constitution. Diversity includes all viewpoints, even the ones you don't like.
Also, all his class fears, drug fears, lack of understanding and all the other things that would have been "normal" in his time.Alex_P said:
I quite like my history to come without the airbrush, so we don't repeat the same mistakes we made the first time.
People still read Little Red Riding Hood, and there's a whole lotta nasty stuff there. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/5928-Review-The-Path]
This is similar to issues brought up by the actions and art of Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and most recently, Michael Jackson. To me, the issue is always the same:
Consuming an artists work is not by necessity support of the views expressed in the art.
Neither is it by necessity support of the creator's non-artistically expressed personal views.
You are only paying for the art. You do not have to be involved in anything but the art.
The tricky part is that the converse also holds true in that:
Consuming an artists work can be argued or explicitly expressed as support of the views expressed in the art.
It can be argued or explicitly expressed as support of the creator's non-artistically expressed personal views.
Thing is, unless you are doing things on the second list, it's no one's concern how or why you spend your time and money. It all depends on how much credence you yourself place on the proposed connection. In other words, it's completely subjective; there is no proof to be had, since we can't read minds and intent and do not have perfect knowledge of events and motivations.
Card expressed his personal opinions, opinions he arrived at through his own reason (however flawed you may color it, you should allow that it is reason at work). The person who chooses to boycott is making a reasonable choice based on a reasonable connection. The person who decides they want to consume the art, because they either don't care about the personal views of the artist or don't accept that purchase of the game is a direct enough support of Card's views to be the same morally, arrives at that conclusion reasonably. The person who buys the game because they expressly agree with Card do so because they accept the action as direct support of the creator's views, and that is also reasonable.
This is the real world. There are no absolutes. Simply choose what you think is reasonable and be prepared to find out how the opposite is also reasonable. This is how politics are born.
Consuming an artists work is not by necessity support of the views expressed in the art.
Neither is it by necessity support of the creator's non-artistically expressed personal views.
You are only paying for the art. You do not have to be involved in anything but the art.
The tricky part is that the converse also holds true in that:
Consuming an artists work can be argued or explicitly expressed as support of the views expressed in the art.
It can be argued or explicitly expressed as support of the creator's non-artistically expressed personal views.
Thing is, unless you are doing things on the second list, it's no one's concern how or why you spend your time and money. It all depends on how much credence you yourself place on the proposed connection. In other words, it's completely subjective; there is no proof to be had, since we can't read minds and intent and do not have perfect knowledge of events and motivations.
Card expressed his personal opinions, opinions he arrived at through his own reason (however flawed you may color it, you should allow that it is reason at work). The person who chooses to boycott is making a reasonable choice based on a reasonable connection. The person who decides they want to consume the art, because they either don't care about the personal views of the artist or don't accept that purchase of the game is a direct enough support of Card's views to be the same morally, arrives at that conclusion reasonably. The person who buys the game because they expressly agree with Card do so because they accept the action as direct support of the creator's views, and that is also reasonable.
This is the real world. There are no absolutes. Simply choose what you think is reasonable and be prepared to find out how the opposite is also reasonable. This is how politics are born.
What the bejesus?
I have to ask, why is the man's political view such a major issue?
Has he actually done anything that's morally off. I realise his political and probably (definately) homophobic attitude there isn't marvellous. But why should that colour your opinion of his work? Especially if it doesn't show it off overtly in his work.
More importantly why should you punish the other umpteen people who have worked on that game just because of him?
Put it another way, if you tried to boycott the work of someone who was pro same sex marriage, or if the lead designer was gay, you'd get shot to pieces in a storm of righteous internet bullets. I don't see how this is any different, it's just intolerance of others beliefs.
I actually admire his courage to say something he believes in even if it does go against the current moral compass (and my own beliefs for that matter). I'll bet there's plenty of other people who share his opinions, but keep it to themselves. You'll be buying their games quite happily.
I have to ask, why is the man's political view such a major issue?
Has he actually done anything that's morally off. I realise his political and probably (definately) homophobic attitude there isn't marvellous. But why should that colour your opinion of his work? Especially if it doesn't show it off overtly in his work.
More importantly why should you punish the other umpteen people who have worked on that game just because of him?
Put it another way, if you tried to boycott the work of someone who was pro same sex marriage, or if the lead designer was gay, you'd get shot to pieces in a storm of righteous internet bullets. I don't see how this is any different, it's just intolerance of others beliefs.
I actually admire his courage to say something he believes in even if it does go against the current moral compass (and my own beliefs for that matter). I'll bet there's plenty of other people who share his opinions, but keep it to themselves. You'll be buying their games quite happily.