Slashdot Mirror
Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show
grammar fascist writes "Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty. New stories are released quarterly, with new column installments added monthly to the current issue. New art is created for each story. There isn't even an attempt at draconian content control. Writers and artists give exclusive rights for one year - after that, limited rights. Card wants your stories and art, not your copyrights. I've finished the first issue now, and the stories are great. "Eviction Notice" made me cry, and I laughed out loud at "Loose in the Wires." I paid my $2.50 initially to support the business model, but the stories themselves are worth it."
So you'd have to say that Tom Cruise never put out an enjoyable movie, that you never sang along to a Michael Jackson song in the 80s, that OJ simpson wasn't a great football player. People are different, some of the most talented are flawed.
What there's no room for in the 21st century are the black/white reactionary actions you espouse. If you disagree with Card's politics, fine. If you don't want to buy or even keep his books, fine. But stating that there's no room for "animals" like him? Way to paint yourself into that extremist corner and lose any validity for your argument. Try formulating an argument, support it with facts, and allow your reader to determine whether this is someone they want to support.
Also, in the "Submissions" section..
We pay 6 cents a word up to $500. Stories can be longer, but the word rate drops with increasing length to always yield a total of $500.
With this payment we buy exclusive rights in any language or any medium throughout the world for one year from date of first publication in the magazine, and nonexclusive electronic and/or online rights in any language in perpetuity. We also buy nonexclusive print and audio rights throughout the world and in all languages for inclusion in multi-author anthologies based on the magazine, for which you will receive a pro rata share of the authors' share of advances and royalties, to be reported and paid when reports and payments are received by us from the publisher (or, if we are the publisher, every six months after one year after publication, if there are any earnings to report).
Though these rights are not outrageous, they are by no means extraordinary. In fact, they are more restrictive than your average magazine rights - usually they don't restrict your right to publish in other media for a year, like this does (eg, according to this you are not allowed to sell your story to any anthology for a year from the publication date...).
So essentially, whereas magazines normally only buy first rights (the rights to be the first to publish the story), this one wants to be the only one for at least a year. Respect for the author's rights? Really?
Daniel
Carpe Diem
I'm surprised anyone tries to pin Genghis Khan down using a modern political spectrum. After all, the man implemented the largest (and misguided) conservation projects known to man, by attempting to restore most of Asia to its natural Mongolian grasslands (in part by laying waste to cities and farmland). And arguing whether Genghis Khan was reactionary or not depends on your point of view. He certainly greatly upset the prior order.
OSC also is very active compared to other SFF writers in teaching the next generation to write. He's taught creative writing classes (and he's much more qualified than most who teach those usually worthless classes). He's written a book on how to write SFF, and a book on characterization. And, believe it or not, both books have solid advice...I taught myself how to write before I picked up his books on characterization and SFF, and I pretty much was nodding, going, "Yes, this is right...I do that already...yep, he's got it right..." What I had learned independantly on my own was confirmed in them. They're the only books on writing I've read so far that actually know what they're talking about...I've laughed a few others out the window for being absurdly incorrect on a lot of points.
I have the feeling that the new webzine is just another step in making a high-quality market for the next generation of writers. I wouldn't be surprised if this turned into the next, oh, I don't know...Azimov's, or something like Marion Zimmer Bradley's anthologies, or other SFF 'zine that was backed by a highly talented author, back in the "Good 'ol days".
Enders game is the only book of his I read, but if you asked me his political position after that I would have come up with rightwing authoritarian. There is a definate subtext of "the authorities are of course right, what are you thinking even considering otherwise?" in that work.
In fact lots of military Sci-Fi falls in that category. Check out David Weber's works for instance. Democracy is just something that gets in the way of chain of command in those books, and it usually does whatever the worst thing possible would be. He primarily uses it as a way to inject "bad" characters into the chain of command so his darling heros can show them up and look better in the eyes of the higher-ups.
I read the internet for the articles.
You mean like equal protection under the law for the way they happen to be born? Or did you mean to marry who they want because they love that person?
When people talk about the political goals of a group they usually mean that they don't want that group to have the same rights as they do.
Take your pick. The anti-slavery groups, womens suffrage, womens rights, the people in these groups were denouced at one time or another (and to some extent still are) because these groups wanted the same rights for their members as the rest of the people had (usually white men).
exhibiting lewd behavior on "gay pride" day you're branded a homophobe.
So it's okay when heterosexual women flash their breasts (lewd behavior) during Mardi Gras or get felt up by their studmuffin while sitting on the park bench.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Have you actually ever read his work? Lots of fascinating ideas in there. Some are getting dated...ie, in Ender's Game there's a scene where Ender fools the other kids by basically signing up for a second account and IMing everyone, and while that stuff didn't exist when the book was written, it's common nowdays so probably doesn't have the same effect as it did not 10 years ago...but others are still interesting.
His feuding brothers are getting annoying, though. For some reason half of his brothers like to hate the other halfs' guts. But that's another topic alltogether...
and inane social commentary
Well, I find it nice that he's so involved with his community. Perhaps you find contributing to community inane, but I respect it.
The man is a racist homophobic bigot
Racist? Obviously you've never read his stuff. As for homophobic...perhaps, I don't like his opinions there myself. I don't think he's a bigot, though. A bigot is someone who never considers anyone else's view. I think he's someone who has thought about it, and has chosen his path, much like I've considered things, and I've chosen my path. Not everyone who is not all for gay rights or who supports Bush is a narrow-minded bigot, as much as I'd like to jump on that bandwagon myself and say they are. (wouldn't that be a form of bigotry itself?)
who deserves scorn and scrutiny
In that order? The scorn before the scrutiny? ::grin:: Perhaps reverse that...take a good look at what he's saying, then decide if you want to scorn everything, or not.
I'm not saying everyone should lovy-dovy-love him, just that I've found in my own following of his columns that he has more interesting, worthwhile ideas than not, and I've found I respect someone who contributes to his communties--SFF literature, and his local hometown--more than someone who bitches and complains but doesn't try to pitch in to help in their own communities. I do find his views on homosexuality to be a shame, though. And Bush. Bleh. I don't read his political columns anymore, because I know I don't agree.
(Heh, I'm such a moderate...damned because I'm not left-wing enough, damned because I'm not right-wing enough.)
There's definitly something amazing about the short story format. It is particularly well-suited to sci-fi, as can be evidenced by the beginnings of the genre in Amazing Stories, etc, and thousands of issues of Omni and Asimov's Science Fiction that continue to publish great fiction. And there's something wonderful about holding the latest issue in your hand, taking it with you on the bus, reading it cover to cover, one story at a time.
It's great that Orson Scott Card is doing his own magazine! I've read some anthologies that he's edited, and they were very good. However, I'd really love to order this in PRINT, if I could, or head over to the magazine store to pick up the latest issue.
As much as we'd like websites to take over the print market, I just don't see it happening. I still want a piece of paper in my hand when it comes to reading. Even if it was on one of those nice new paper-like LCD screens, I can't imagine it would be an equal experience to holding a book in your hand. I think it's not resolution that is the defining factor here. It is something about the permanence of ink on paper that wins me over. When I finish reading a great story, I never want to lose it. I want to put it on my shelf so I know where it is. The harddrive is such a volatile place to store memories that you don't want to lose...
While I disagree with Orson Scott Card's politics, it is very unfair to call him "an insane rightwing religious fanatic" (although I suppose that nowadays in our big brother world anyone who doesn't have absolute unquestioning faith in what is "politically correct" is some sort of "dangerous extremist").
The Taliban are religious fanatics. Pat Roberson is a religious fanatic. Orson Scott Card is not a religious fanatic, he is someone who simply has views that differ with yours.
At one time in the Western world it was considered enlightened to have free an open discussion amoung people with differing views. You respected those you disagreed with, if they respected you, even if you had political disagreements. Even if there was NO ONE who would argue a certain point of view, someone would be the "devil's advocate", and argue that point of view - because to not expose yourself to a certain point was considered the height of ignorance!
How low we have sunk, to where one questions the sanity of anyone who disagrees with them, and will not have anything to do with them... and now, increasingly they want to throw people who disagree with them in prison, or at least make it illegal for them to speak in public.
My only issue is codifying YOUR religious beliefs in law.
I'm in favor of cutting the Gordian knot. I think there should be no (not any, zero) State sanctioning or involvement with marriage. No tax breaks (except for children, whose legal guardianship can be established). No tax hikes.
Want survivor benefits? Sign a contract. Want child support if the relationship dissolves? Sign a contract. Want social security benefits? (yeah, right...it's pretty to think...) Sign a contract.
The State should not be in the social engineering business. The State should be performing the minimum possible actions to maintain a civil society, not deciding who is allowed to put which naughty bits where.
You should be free to disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle. Others should be free to practice whatever lifestyle they wish, even though you labor under the misapprehension that they're "wrong" or "deviant".
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You almost got it right. I don't think it's freedom of religion per se that is under attack. Rather, I see a consistent, pervasive demonization of religious people as a class. In short: prejudice, bigotry, condemnation of and hatred of people based on group affiliation.
And I find deeply disturbing some of the stuff that goes unchallenged around here.
No, I wouldn't deny him his right to disagree.
However, I *would* deny him the right to *criminalize" those who disagree with HIM.
To quote from Card,
"The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly"
IOW, the goal is to make sure that if you're bold enough to come out of the closet, you also must be bold enough to face arrest.
But there's a bigger issue here -- and that is the root policy of making sure *everyone* can be found in violation of SOME law, so that if they want to arrest you, they can do so. In Card's case it's being applied only to homosexuals. But what if the old laws still applied to (another poster's example) racially-mixed marriages? should those laws remain on the books too, just because someone disagrees with the practice?
Point being, any law that is *designed* to be *selectively* enforced is wrong.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?