I admit, I sometimes find myself shocked when I find articulate, intelligent people expressing views I find abhorrent. Horrible arrogance on my part, I know, but as far as Card is concerned, I don't want to read another word he's written because of some of the shit he's pulled - namely, his views on homosexuality - has pissed me off too much. So whilst I have heard many good things about Ender's Game, I'm probably never going to read it.
With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.I'm afraid I haven't read anything by OSC, but I find your argument reasonable.
Likes many underrated webcomicsFor those like me who don't know anything, what are his positions?
I mean, I can guess from the context, but?
Read my stories!Eh, it sucks, but I was expecting him to be way more "siiiiin" or something with that reaction.
edited 18th May '12 5:19:23 PM by MrAHR
Read my stories!There's less correlation than we assume between talent/intelligence and policies. If I limited my reading to authors free of social or political opinions that I found noxious, I'd be mostly out of luck.
And a little perspective might be in order: if Card's attitudes put him that far beyond the moral pale, then there've been vanishingly few decent human beings in the world up until about a decade ago.
Plus intelligence sadly does not apply to everything... you can have a very important scientist (as an example) who is crap as a person and ignorant about everything not related to his job. We tend to assume that people that show intelligence in something show intelligence in everything and it's not true.
edited 18th May '12 6:00:11 PM by Nirnaeth
When an author's most famous novel is about the importance of understanding, empathy, and tolerance, and then they hold political positions that show a distinct lack of those traits in reference to a specific group of people, expressing a bit of surprise seems pretty legit to me.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
Ah, I see. Is this policy based on economic reasons or social reasons? Not defending the guy, honestly curious. My own parents are against gay marriage, purely for fiscal reasons so I know there are more than one way to be against something. I mean, it'd still make no sense, but if it was for economic, I could see why he might logically able to rationalize it, even if it is inherently biased.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
I know what you mean; I'm still going to get the Avengers at some point, even though I would not get along well with anyone who calls my God a "Sky-Bully".
People who disagree with Card have room to be more discerning, because for every 1 OSC there are 10 Joss Whedon's or James Camerons.
![]()
![]()
That's the thing though. Some people simply do not consider homosexuality as being something these things can apply to.
Perhaps people are right, perhaps 9/11 did disillusion Card and cause him to abandon any Left-Wing beliefs he may have had. Lord knows: foreign terrorists destroy two of your greatest landmarks, killing an unprecedented number of American citizens and you have people the world over (even in America) saying "You deserve this!" It's really not that hard for people to believe that all the talk of enemies out to "destroy America" wasn't as irrational and hyperbolic as people on the Left kept making it out to be.
It's not surprising that more than a few people revaluated their views on tolerance and understanding in the wake of the tragedy.
Though this is all assuming he changed any of his views at all. I personally see the story as a metaphor for loss of childhood innocence. Many Conservatives see loss of innocence as a problem accelerated by the secular public-school system. So when you think about it, there's really not that much in the story conflicting with Mr. Card's views.
It all comes down to your interpretation of tolerance, or if you believe in the concept at all. There are those who see the idea of tolerance as being in direct conflict with another key element of western civilization: morality. At the end of the day some people simply don't see keeping Gay marriage illegal as being anywhere on par with committing genocide against an entire race.
My problem is pretty much what Native Jovian said above; Ender's Game is about empathy, even toward creatures that are unimaginably alien; if Card can feel empathy toward alien bug monsters, how can he be so intolerant of his fellow human beings?
Also, to clarify a couple things; he doesn't just donate money to NOM, he's on their board of directors. And although he retracted many of them later, he has, in the past, expressed views that went far beyond just keeping gay marriage illegal. At one point, he went so far as to say that homosexuality itself should remain illegal. I can understand people being a tad bit upset over that, I think.
Ender's Game has been since I read it, and always will be, one of my favorite books. It is the best anti-war book ever written, bar none in my view (yeah, as far as I am concerned it kicks All Quiet on the Western Front in the nuts on that score), and so far as I can see will always be so.
Its writer's views, well, the book didn't ask to be written by a Mormon homophobe.
Fascinating.
Although, it does make sense that he could have that bias, if you assume it's a "you should accept all other walks of life, except those that are wrong" type of thing. Which humans tend to do, no matter what they say.
edited 19th May '12 9:15:41 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!There's nothing inherently wrong with it, because it stops us from accepting, say, murderers, but people tend to do it without realizing they are. It's good to be self aware about these things. Try and know WHY you reject someone.
Read my stories!![]()
It is still a stark contrast with the themes of empathy in Ender's Game, and, frankly, it's a bit of a disappointment for gay fans of the book to find out what kind of things
he has to say about them
.
edited 19th May '12 9:45:51 AM by ChocolateCotton
Yes, OSC is a nasty bigot; but that doesn't mean that you can't enjoy his works.
Some people should be banned from expressing their opinions and should be forced to write novels more frequently, OSC is one of them.
edited 19th May '12 10:48:46 AM by ATC
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton booksHey, want to kidnap him with me?
I'll need somebody with a stout back to barricade the door if he tries to escape.
If you want any of my avatars, just Pm me I'd truly appreciate any avatar of a reptile sleeping in a Nice Hat Read Elmer Kelton booksKidnapping? So last century.
I could do it with two photographs. One of his family members, intact. One of his family members, not so intact. Blood, viscera, eyes gouged out, the works.
I would say that the second one was Photoshopped from the first. I would then ask if he wanted to make sure that the one showing his family intact had to be Photoshopped from the second one.
![]()
Okay, get the black jackets and let's go all Le Parkour through some halls of smoky red lasers!
That's a perfect way to set up an elaborate revenge. Are we equipped to deal with that?

I notice when people talk about Orson Scott Card's views on Gay Marriage, many seem to find it surprising that he's the same man who wrote something like Ender's Game.
The reasoning is usually that Ender's game held too much clever commentary and was too thought-provoking for the author to possibly hold such views. This makes me mad, it's effectively saying: "But he was too smart to disagree with me."
Some people suggest his views must have been different at the time of writing. I find people often make a big deal out of it when their opinions on certain issues change, as it makes their new point of view seem more valid, so this idea seems unlikely.
Many people describe Ender's Game as an "outsider story". This is not necessarily the case; there are many reasonable ways to interpret the story which don't conflict with Mr. Card's views in the least. Also, opinions on what is considered an "outsider" are varied. Some consider a girl in high school determined to save sex until marriage as an outsider. A student at Harvard who received most of his education as a quivurful homeschooler would also qualify.
I simply feel that it is the height of arrogance to assume that everyone who creates a well-written, thought-provoking piece of work will share your opinions, even ones you feel very strongly about. I know that too many people feel that the case is closed on gay marriage and there are simply no rational arguments against it, so Orson Scott Card MUST be an idiot and MUST have had a different mindset at the time of writing Ender's Game.
This seems like a very poor form of philosophical argument and an even poorer form of literary criticism. To suggest that an author who holds certain views should not be capable of writing such a high-caliber work.
I'll admit to not having read OSC's essays, being unsure where to start, so maybe it's something more than simple opposition to Gay marriage that's got folks angry. If not, though; it seems like this mindset could make the literary world a rather unpleasant place for exchanging ideas and views.
edited 18th May '12 2:37:25 PM by Albor