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."

Comments

Pay me now and pay me later

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine what Cards could do with that two dollars and fifty cents if he wasn't paying the exorbitant slashvertisement fees.

But I'm an illiterate ...

[Anonymous Coward]

you insensitive clod!

i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

but sci-fi sucks.. not meaning to troll but i really just cant stand it.. :(

Re:i'm sorry

[ZiakII]

but sci-fi sucks.. not meaning to troll but i really just cant stand it.. :(

you should be a critic honestly you would fit in with them.....

Re:i'm sorry

[karnifex]

Then why waste the energy, if not simply to shit in the proverbial punch bowl? Frankly, Mr. Coward, no one cares what you think.

Re:i'm sorry

[code601]

I used to be a big enders game fan and thought OSC was the king until i read things from the like peter f hamilton, greg bear and ian m banks etc The nights dawn trilogy makes enders game look like fan-fiction

Re:i'm sorry

[CyricZ]

I care what he or she thinks. I care what you think, too. But when you think that nobody cares whatever he or she thinks, then I know you are wrong. Because I care.

Re:i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

I care what he or she thinks. I care what you think, too. But when you think that nobody cares whatever he or she thinks, then I know you are wrong. Because I care.

Only if you put some sci-fi references in that you wouldn't be offtopic.

He or she is a alien, you are from the future, and the jarhead sugesting that he or she shits in punch bowls is a vegitron. I think he or she can't stand sci-fi because he or she being from another planet can't take it seriously. I think you already know what i'm going to say, and this other guy is quarking on the floor pollinating it self.

Re:i'm sorry

[Anonymous Coward]

Fag.

Re:i'm sorry

[CyricZ]

No, I don't smoke cigarettes, thank you.

Re:i'm sorry

[MBraynard]

And when you read the other stuff written by Peter F Hamilton, like Misspent Youth, you will clamor for OSC.

NDT and Ender stuff aren't really comparible. Space Oprah versus a single-character centered narrative.

Fr0st p1st!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. It's really cold here.

Yeah. PayPalPowered

[KZigurs]

Sad. Promising issue but looks like they will NOT get my 2.50$ for the simple reason that they are using PayPal. There is no way I would trust my personal information, let alone my CC data to them.

Anybody gotta copy?

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[MindStalker]

You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it. There are a few valid complaints yes, but I've never heard of anyone without an account paying through them having any problems. They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[hqm]

I use PayPal, even though they are scum bags, but I don't give them my credit card info. I set up a special bank account which I only keep a minimal (~ $20) balance, so they cannot drain my main account. That way I can use PayPal without worrying about them stealing my money. It's easy to ask your bank to set up a new special account.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[$RANDOMLUSER]

You do realize what a testimonial against using PayPal this is, don't you?

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[patricksevenlee]

You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it. There are a few valid complaints yes, but I've never heard of anyone without an account paying through them having any problems. They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome.

Uhhh.... no. My PayPal account was frozen when I sold something on eBay and there was a dispute between myself and the buyer. Both PayPal and eBay ruled in my favor (this was before eBay bought PayPal) but then in sour grapes that the arbitration didn't go his way, the buyer did a reverse charge on his credit card, PayPal told me to pay up or they freeze my account. And this is despite the fact that they ruled in my favor. I told them which layer of Dante's Infero to go and will NEVER use PayPal ever again.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[zakezuke]

You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it. There are a few valid complaints yes, but I've never heard of anyone without an account paying through them having any problems. They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome.

I like many others got their paypal frozen. No valid explanation, no correction, no fraud. Granted I just created another account using a more verbose form of my e-mail address but regardless there are people who bitching who have just cause... hince that class action lawsuit.

http://www.paypalsucks.com/forums/showthread.php?f id=3&tid=5223&old_block=0

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[MindStalker]

Such is the cost of buisness in taking credit cards, your disagreement is with the credit card company that allowed him to reverse the charges. But if paypal had done what you wanted they would have had to shell out the money themselves, something they arn't going to do.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[omgpotatoes]

I can't believe this was modded Interesting - it's totally wrong. Have a look at the size of the PayPalSucks forums to get an idea of what I mean - size alone should give you an idea of what you're dealing with here.

Then go read one of their draconian user agreements, the ex-employee/whistleblower interviews (PayPalSucks and elsewhere), and maybe something like this. Or just google it?

I was ripped off myself - thankfully only for US$2.50 - for the crime of living outside the US and sending verification papers a month too slow. I logged in one day to find my account locked before even the first transaction, with big red bold text to the effect of "bugger off, we don't want your money". I made several calls to get it working again before finding PayPalSucks, but couldn't be bothered spending any more time fighting their obfuscation-fu. I'd suggest my case was more incompetence than malice, but I've seen (firsthand) much worse.

No offense meant, but please do a little research before making such sweeping claims. It's really annoying to see someone sing their praises after watching them get away with the kind of shit that they do.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[MindStalker]

If you ever dealt with merchant accounts with real banks, you'd realize its the same shit, really it is. Of course half the bitching people do is that they arn't a real bank. Only different I've seen if the Federal Insurance, and lesser fees.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[omgpotatoes]

Well, I've never had a merchant account with a real bank, so I can't do that comparison. And I agree that cost is a major driver in that industry, so much so that bad service may be optimal. But any company which makes money by freezing accounts, draining money, and making it very difficult/costly to retrieve said money (earning interest all the way) goes down as evil in my book.

It's true that people bitch about them misrepresenting themselves as a bank. I'm bitching about how PayPal takes peoples' money for the flimsiest of reasons and refuses to give it back just because they're big and lawyers are expensive.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[Moraelin]

"You do realize most of the anti-paypal stuff out there is just people bitching and complaining because they were attempting some sort of fraud and paypal caught them on it."

Actually, of all the anti-paypal stuff I've read so far, none involved a fraud.

Plus, people commiting frauds tend to keep a low profile, because we're talking a crime punishable by law. You don't see whole public web-sites of people advertising that they've commited fraud against, say, a bank, any more than you see web sites full of people advertising their rapist prowess. Much less class-action lawsuits against the bank by them.

So I'm wondering on what do you base that kind of a broad-sweeping generalization. You're accusing a helluva lot of people of commiting a crime, so I'd like that to be based on some actual evidence, rather than fanboyism.

But even that's missing the whole point: even without those complaints, why should I trust my money to a company (A) who ostensibly is not a bank, and (B) whose terms and conditions of use basically say "all your money are belong to us. We can do whatever we wish, for any damn reason we wish. You have no rights, and don't guarantee anything, not even that you'll ever see your money back. And, oh, suing us to get your money back is also a breach of this contract."

See, banks aren't just a big company that you trust, but are subject to strict government regulations _and_ backing. You essentially don't even have to trust your bank, because there's a whole legal framework that's not only there to kick them in the teeth if they tried to run away with it, but also to make sure that you _will_ get your money back. From your government, if all else fails.

By comparison, PayPal is... what? A dot-com which overtly makes no guarantees, puts itself outside any rules or obligations, and you just have to trust them that they'll do the right thing. It's like giving your CC to a John Doe on the street, because he looks like a thrustworthy fellow. Or to the widdow of Mr Bantu Nguana from Nigeria, because she seems so sincere in that email asking for your help to transfer those 80 million dollars.

And even if you trust their current management, we're talking a dot-com which changed management and got bought at least once. Do you automatically trust that any future managers will also be trustworthy, even though your contract with them says "do what you will with my money, you are always automatically right, and I'm automatically wrong if I disaggree"? Why?

"They havn't had any breaches in security that would cause your CC data to be worrysome."

No, you don't know that. You only know that they haven't published any incident, but then they also didn't put their other mistakes on the front page. But even assuming it were so:

1. How do you know it will stay so? What happens when a new CEO is brought to reduce costs and he outsources it all to the cheapest monkeys he can find? I'm not even talking about offshoring only: there has been a recent case right on /. of some american idiot rent-a-coder that exported and zipped a productive database, and posted it on a website, asking if someone can help him format that data. In fact, he posted it twice. Complete with people's names, addresses, etc.

2. What is your recourse when that eventually happens? With a bank you have a certain guarantee, both from it and from your government, that your money won't just disappear down a rat hole. PayPal explicitly gives none.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[Dun Malg]

See, banks aren't just a big company that you trust, but are subject to strict government regulations _and_ backing. You essentially don't even have to trust your bank, because there's a whole legal framework that's not only there to kick them in the teeth if they tried to run away with it, but also to make sure that you _will_ get your money back. From your government, if all else fails.

By comparison, PayPal is... what?

I don't know where people got the idea that PayPal was anything like a bank in the first place. They're more like a bare-bones cheap credit card processing service. You'd get the same lack of service and callous disregard for your money from those "$25/mo plus 5% of each transaction" card processing folks. Buyer disputes a charge? You're mostly SOL! If you want good service as a merchant, you gotta pay for it. Get a decent payment processing service. If you're so bent on accepting paypal, find a service provider like Andale who will middleman it for you.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[Moraelin]

"I don't know where people got the idea that PayPal was anything like a bank in the first place."

Thank you. That was actually the whole point: yes, it's nothing like a bank, which is precisely _why_ I don't trust them with my money.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[MindStalker]

Do you ever shop online? I'm just wondering why you don't trust paypal with your CC info and yet you trust any other online store.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[Reziac]

I trust PayPal with my CC info, about as much as I do any online retailer -- which is to say, within limits: on a secure server and a per-transaction basis.

But I DON'T trust PayPal with my BANK ACCOUNT info, which they "require" if you want to spend over a certain amount (last I looked, the limit was $2000) or get paid by others. Paypal HAS been hacked in the past, and people's bank accounts pillaged thereby.

The solution is to have an isolated bank account (not connected to another account) that is used ONLY for Paypal stuff, has no overdrafts allowed, and is kept pretty much empty.

Re:Yeah. PayPalPowered

[patricksevenlee]

Such is the cost of buisness in taking credit cards, your disagreement is with the credit card company that allowed him to reverse the charges. But if paypal had done what you wanted they would have had to shell out the money themselves, something they arn't going to do.

So what you're saying is, Paypal simply doesn't work. Your proposal that I am responsible for someone else's credit card is ridiculous. I'm as Libertarian and believe as much in self-responsibilty as the next person but your suggestion is preposterous and takes the concept to a ridiclous extreme. What's next? You're going to tell me that I should have started my own payment company and forced the buyer to sign a contract stating no chargebacks before I accept his payment? Let me BidPay or Western Union you five cents so you can buy a clue. :rolleyes:

Doctorow

[yourexhalekiss]

Cory Doctorow from BoingBoing is going to jump all over this.

(Not without reason though, it seems.)

Great for O.S. Card

[mordors9]

This follows in the great tradition of the old print anthologies of SF Stories. Hopefully this will lead to more interest in SF and writing in general. Perhaps we can return to the glory days of SciFi.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[EvilTwinSkippy]

And more importantly, it provides a ground floor for new authors to join Science Fiction and refine their craft.

As far as the glory days of Sci-Fi, you really aren't going to get them back. Computers, Relativity and Quantumn Mechanics aren't vague incantations that authors can wave about and conjure stories from. These items that were science fiction back in the Golden Age, are today common place. Quantumn mechanics defines the size of computer chips. Our understanding of Relativity (special and general) made the GPS system possible. Computers are so common, that much of what they run aren't considered computer applications anymore.

Television and movies have also warped the public's taste for material. Odds are, if you can think of it, there is a short story, 2 novels, 3 B-movies, an episode of Star Trek, and a feature length movie that have already explored the concept to death. I swear, Sci-Fi is more stamp collecting than imagination these days. Even when someone comes up with a new idea, the first thing critics say is "Bradberry did it better in..."

Sci-Fi has, for better or for worse, morphed into just another Genre of literature. Which I say is for the better, because it means that authors can concentrate more on story telling than worry about wowing the audience with some new gadget.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[MightyMartian]

The very best sci-fi, even during the Golden Age, did not attempt to wow people with gadgets. Guys like Asimov, Brackett and Del Rey were master story tellers, and while some of the stuff from the pre-1960s era were at times laden down with a bit of "atom power" (forgivable considering the promise and threat it held in those days), I can still sit back, read Leigh Brackett's The Last Days of Shandakor and know that, though the setting is now been trumped by hard science, that story may very well be one of the great pieces of short fiction of the 20th century.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[rufty_tufty]

There'sa difference between watching sci-fi and reading sci-fi. I'd agree the sci-fi I'm watching has been done to death before, but not what I'm reading. I would agree most popular Azmov or Clarke has been done to death, but there's a LOT more sci fi out there than that. Ok Dune too.

What of OSC's concepts have been explored in depth? When I first read it a few years ago i found it new. (ok I've only read 3 of the ender series but...)
Which feature films/Startrek cover the exploits of an invading alien race trying to use earth for it's drugs supplies trying to subvert their own government? (Mission Earth - L Ron Hubbard)
Need I mention Ringworld?

I'll shut up now...

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[EvilTwinSkippy]

What of OSC's concepts have been explored in depth?

A young man coming of age during military service against an alien intelligence: Starship Troopers, Robert A. Heinlein.

Which feature films/Startrek cover the exploits of an invading alien race trying to use earth for it's drugs supplies trying to subvert their own government?

Ach, I can't find it, but I my travels through the Sci-Fi/Horror section of the video store had several plot synapses along that line dating from the 80's. One in particular had aliens coming to Earth and transforming human bodies into narcotics factories (and doing the person in, in the process). I know for a fact said title pre-dates L.Ron Hubbard's Misson Earth series by several years.

Ringworld

Is a derivation of Dyson's work on spheres, combined with a little bit of Jules Verne and touched with the three legged aliens from H.G. Well's War of the Worlds.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[Kadin2048]

I won't comment on your other points but I take issue with the characterization of Card's Ender's Game as just another "young man coming of age during military service against an alien intelligence" book. I've read both Card's book and Heinlein's, and the fact that both of them share the same vague premise doesn't detract from either as a story.

I think that you need to separate a story -- which is what makes a novel good -- from its setting and premise. You can start off with the exact same setting, even the same situation, and two authors can develop it into two completely different stories, both of which are enjoyable in their own right and do not detract from each other. I think the Ender series and Starship Troopers are examples of this (obviously indicative of my personal preferences, but I'm sure everyone can find a similar situation).

Anyone who thinks that 'science fiction' as a genre is played out is taking a very narrow view and failing to understand that most writers strive to develop stories and build characters, not just scenarios and universes, and many (Card included) do not work exclusively in SF to begin with.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[llefler]

Need I mention Ringworld?

I would love to see a series based on Ringworld. Or some Niven movies. Destiny Road would make an interesting movie.

Or maybe C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy could be Lord of the Rings without the boring parts.

Re:Great for O.S. Card

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I am not saying the Science Fiction is played out at all. What I am saying is that there we have identified certain patterns in stories, and the ones that work best have also worked before in folklore and hero myths.

Carl Jung and James Campbell have done far more work in this field than I could hope to encompass in a slashdot posting.

Another way to support Independant Science Fiction

[salimfadhley]

Another way to support independant sci-fi is to listen to Escape Pod, the weekly science-fiction podcast magazine.

I'm not involved in this project, but I have been a frequent donor. I think EP is a very important project. To some extent, the sci-fi and fantasy genres are dominated by the feature film, the novel and the long-running series. The traditional vehicle for short stories, magazines, have a dwindling readership, and do not have the distribution that they once had at their peak.

EP seeks to create an audience, and perhaps one day a market for short, original science-fiction stories. I think this is a very noble and important cause.

Please tune in. I hope you enjoy it. You can find it listed on all good podcast directories.

Stresstesting server

[Big Nothing]

Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show, a science fiction / fantasy webzine, went online just yesterday. Card, the editor-in-chief, wants to have his server stress tested.

Re:Stresstesting server

[Hyperlink Processor]

Nothing like a good slashdotting to check for hernias.

Pffft...Mormons

[BushCheney08]

Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty.

Pffft. Leave it to a Mormon to actually implement a business model that respects the work's creator...

(I just spent last week in SLC. Can't say I agree with a lot of their views, but they are a very nice bunch of people.)

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think the Mormons are nice people, you obviously haven't lived there. I grew up there man, and I'm still in therapy! Also, O.S. Card is an egotistical pervert, but his mom is nice enough. Hi Peggy, sorry for calling your son a pervert, but it's true (and you know it.)

Totally off the subject, it's illegal to dance in public in Utah now. (Footloose anyone?)

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that law just made it illegal to hold public dances without a permit.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

You just had to go there.
Now we can get see the flood of anti-Mormon bigotry start flowing.
BTW The Mormon Churches website has instructions on how to view and or listen to their webcasts on Linux.
Thanks for saying that they are a nice bunch of people but just like every group you have some good and some bad. Frankly if you want to show your respect for them it is best too just not mention them.
Freedom of Religion is less welcome on Slashdot than a racially mixed wedding at a Klan meeting.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[BushCheney08]

How true. The best way to show your respect for someone is to ignore them. I guess Bush was just showing everyone how much he respects poor people and black people with his response to Katrina. (Yes, I am specifically referring to HIS response. Getting off your ass and returning from vacation in a time of crisis is the sign of someone who gives a shit.)

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[syrinx]

Yes, because Bush personally could have done a whole lot, such as keeping the water out of the flooded areas by plugging the holes in the levees with his fingers. Or teleporting people out of the area WITH HIS MIND! If only he had been there!

(If you're just interested in useless symbols, take a college English class.)

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

You wrote:
BTW The Mormon Churches website has instructions on how to view and or listen to their webcasts on Linux.

Good for them. What they really need, though, is a version of PAF for Linux. Gramps really doesn't cut it.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Jedi Alec]

(If you're just interested in useless symbols, take a college English class.)

Lemme take a wild guess...you must be single. Heads of state just walking around tripping in the mud can for some odd reason be a great comfort. Little cut out cardboard hearts can spark a small tear. What is a useless symbol to one is a huge neon sign to another.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[kentrel]

Freedom of Religion is still more welcome on Slashdot than mentioning that the RIAA are right to go after thieves :)

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

" How true. The best way to show your respect for someone is to ignore them."
In your case yes it really would.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[nasor]

"Freedom of Religion is less welcome on Slashdot than a racially mixed wedding at a Klan meeting."

Actually, most slashdotters are all about freedom of religion; which is why we tend to get so upset when people try to impose their religious beliefs on others. Mr. Card, for example, is well known for his belief that the government should outlaw homosexuality because god doesn't like it.

That is religious intolerance - when you try to force everyone else to behave the way your religion says they should behave, with no justification other than your personal views on what god wants. When people like Card try to force others to conform to his religious beliefs, he is the one who is infringing on the religious freedoms of others. Don't you dare try to portray us as not supporting freedom of religion simply because we don't want blatantly religious beliefs codified into laws.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[thegameiam]

Please cite a source for the accusation.

I've followed Card for quite some time, and I have never heard him argue for government regulation of mores. I've heard him express dislike of policies based on his personal beliefs, but so what? Everyone bases their like and dislike of policy on their personal beliefs.

-David

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

Actually no that is not Religious intolerance.
He is voicing his opinion that he thinks that homosexual marriage is wrong and should be outlawed. That is called the democratic process. He is not declaring it to be illegal. There are people that have the opinion that children should have the "right" to have sex with adults. There are people that have the opinion that all sex outside of marriage should be illegal.
You have two choices.
1. You can as some-people like to put it declare that your scary skygod or FSM has told you what is right or wrong.
or
2. Leave it up to the democratic process.

I find it so very interesting that many people scream how evil religion is only to set themselves up as there own personal God.
If do not believe that there is a God or absolute right or wrong then only right is what the majority declares right or what some dictator decides.

"That is religious intolerance - when you try to force everyone else to behave the way your religion says they should behave, with no justification other than your personal views on what god wants. When people like Card try to force others to conform to his religious beliefs, he is the one who is infringing on the religious freedoms of others. Don't you dare try to portray us as not supporting freedom of religion simply because we don't want blatantly religious beliefs codified into laws."

I agree with you up to one point. How is Card forcing you to do anything? Does he have a gun to your head? Is he going to throw you in a camp? Last time I checked he wasn't doing anything but voicing his opinions. Doesn't he have as much right to voice his opinions as anyone else? Or do you feel that because you disagree with them that is enough to take that right away from him?

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[nasor]

Here you go: http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html " 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 whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society. 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, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. "

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Gnulix]

Now we can get see the flood of anti-Mormon bigotry start flowing.

There's nothing wrong with mormons. Apart from all that messy goat blood and their persistent chanting of "Cthulhu fhatgn" all through the nights.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom of Religion is still more welcome on Slashdot than mentioning that the RIAA are right to go after thieves :)

Actually, I think you will find that most slahdotters think shoplifting is bad and should be prosecuted. Oh, wait, you mean downloading music, don't you? Since that isn't stealing (it is copyright infringment) and the RIAA has never provided credible evidence that it is harmed by the act, I guess most people on SlashDot would have an issue with that statment.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[corblix]

Freedom of Religion is less welcome on Slashdot than a racially mixed wedding at a Klan meeting.

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.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for Muslims, of course; they're officially in the "misunderstood and oppressed" category (despite the whole conversion-at-swordpoint thing).

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[timster]

What's amazing about your comment -- and the fact that it got modded up -- is that the entire thread above it is full of people saying that Mormons are nice, great people, and that they'll tolerate you and leave you alone if you want, and that their church is doing a great job of guiding people well. The major exception was an ex-Mormon or two saying that they were treated badly when leaving.

Religion is not under attack, not on Slashdot and not in the United States. What HAS happened is that some evangelicals have decided to use their religion as a political tool, and poorly (using a knife to turn screws is possible, but bad for the knife). Everyone here is fine with Mormons being Mormons.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[rco3]

I agree with you up to one point. How is Card forcing you to do anything? Does he have a gun to your head? Is he going to throw you in a camp? Last time I checked he wasn't doing anything but voicing his opinions. Doesn't he have as much right to voice his opinions as anyone else? Or do you feel that because you disagree with them that is enough to take that right away from him?

No one has advocated telling him to shut up - that's a straw man you've set up. He's free to hold his opinions, free to express them, etc., but not free to impose his religion upon me, via legislation or any other method. THAT, my friend, would be religious intolerance from OSC. Also note that "wrong"!="should be outlawed," especially when "wrong" is determined on religious grounds. It is, in fact, entirely possible to develop a system of morals which will allow one to be a happy and productive member of society, all without having them handed to you by religion. In other words, one can know right from wrong without your god or any other. Takes more work and more thought, though...

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[BushCheney08]

Now here's a post that deserves to be modded +5, Insightful. You hit the nail right on the head. And as far as some viewing my original comment as flamebait (or "going there" or whatever), it was a mildly playful jab at Mormons, which is precisely why I qualified it with the comment about them being a nice bunch of folks. All the ones I've ever met truly are.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

"one can know right from wrong without your god or any other"
Without a God is there a right or wrong? Without a basis for measurement there can be no right or wrong. If not a God then it must be a person, persons, or a simple majority. Yes you can have a code of morals without a God. It would be a personal code in which case you are the God or a societies code based on majority rule.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

In short: prejudice, bigotry, condemnation of and hatred of people based on group affiliation.

You do realize that the very definition of the word liberal is someone who is free of those things listed above, don't you?

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[thegameiam]

Did you read the rest of the article?

First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there.

But more importantly, this paragraph is near the conclusion:

  Frankly, I find that this quickly turns into a delicious hypocrisy: Those whose agenda is "tolerance" and who insist that ugly words like 'faggot' not be used against them have found an exactly analogous word to use as a weapon in their virulent intolerance of those who disapprove of either their behavior or their political agenda. They use the word to silence opposition, to subvert legitimate discussion. Those who use the word this way are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they are willing to deny the right of others to disagree with them. Thus, in the name of tolerance of diversity, they seek to force others into a perfect uniformity of thought. The fascism of the left is no more attractive than the fascism of the right.

So would you deny him the right to disagree?

I have seen a lot of people make arguments that existing laws should be changed based on either secular or religious beliefs. Why would a person not be permitted to argue that laws should remain the same?

-David

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

So to even be able to have a discussion about right or wrong we must first all worship the same God? Sorry, that doesn't quite cut it. Telling me that I can't talk about the basics with you because of my beliefs *is* religious intolerance. I love how some people like to put up a double standard to claim they're being persecuted.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[rco3]

Without a God is there a right or wrong?

Yes. I'm sorry that you've endured brainwashing at the hands of no-doubt-well-meaning christian clerics, but the fact of the matter is that neither they nor any other spiritual shamen hold a monopoly on morality.

In fact, I'd go so far as to assert that any system of right and wrong based on the caprices of a god is in fact inferior. Such systems take the childish, "wrong is what daddy doesn't want me to do, and he'll punish me if I do it," paradigm and modify it to replace "daddy" with a putative "big daddy in the sky" figure, but the essential core is the same. That's great if you're a primitive society in which education is a luxury afforded to the privileged few and critical thought is still more rare, as this provides a simple way for the clerical class to rule over and maintain some semblance of order in their society. "Don't eat shellfish, pigs are filthy, thou shalt not lie with a woman during her unclean time, thou shalt not kill, etc." are great ways to enforce hygiene and a sort of pseudo-morality upon those who haven't the intellect or education to think for themselves... but it presupposes ignorance and stupidity upon the part of the laiety. Shepherds are those who tend sheep, and there's a reason why christian clerics refer to themselves as shepherds and to their parishioners as their flock.

I won't argue the point that the concepts of right and wrong require some sort of frame of reference. I will, however, disagree vehemently that that frame of reference must necessarily be a deity of any description. Saying that by developing my own moral code I am setting myself up as my own personal god is again logically fallacious, as it presupposes that god is a necessary requirement for a moral code, which is incorrect.

I realize that this view completely contradicts yours. How fortunate for you, then, that we live in a country which has codified the freedom for you to believe what you wish so long as you don't force it upon the rest of us. It's called religious tolerance. That, sir, strikes me as being right - despite not requiring the existence of a god to make that determination.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

"I won't argue the point that the concepts of right and wrong require some sort of frame of reference. I will, however, disagree vehemently that that frame of reference must necessarily be a deity of any description."
I did not say that it had to be a Deity. I just said that if it wasn't then it must be a person, group of persons, or a simple majority.

1. If it is a single person then it is a dictatorship.
2. If it is group of people then it is some ruling class.
3. If it is a majority then it is simply majority rule.

I think that most people would find options 1 and 2 to be... Unpleasant to say the least. That leaves option 3. Under option 3 then what ever the majority decides is right. So if the majority decides that x is wrong then it is wrong.
Then you get into the size of your voting population. Should it be limited to a family, city, state/province, country, region, or planet?

So without an absolute right or wrong and then accepting majority rule as your benchmark, you must accept that everybody has a right to state their opinion as to what should be made right or wrong. If the majority of people say that sex between an adult and a child is wrong then it is wrong. If they say it is right then it is right. So if OSC convinces enough people that Homosexual marriage is immoral then it is. To say that the majority is wrong is to say that there is some authority greater than will of the people. So you are back to a God, a dictator, or a ruling class.

It is illogical to claim some special reference for ones own sense of right and wrong while saying that no else can have the same right.
For you to say that x strikes you as being right or moral without a base of measurement is no less a leap of faith than someone saying that "the bible strikes me as being true". You are saying I know it is right! It is so obvious that anyone can see it. I am not calling into question your morality just your logic.

I am sure that this will inflame the true believers of Slashdot. They very idea that their faith can be questioned always makes them upset.
I often find the level of faith that atheists on Slashdot to equal that of the extreme religious right that see all sorts of "proof" that evolution didn't happen.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

Nope you can disscuse right and wrong once you decide what the base line is. It is sort of like what is "Fast". I am willing to accept the base line of "Majority rule" which doesn't require you to worship the same God or any God. I will not accept "Because I say so", "Because it is just is", or "you are too brainwashed to see it".

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Oligonicella]

"First, he's not advocating for NEW laws, rather the non-removal of the old ones. Subtle, but important difference there."

Bullshit. No real difference at all. Ask anyone married to someone of another race if the old laws should have been left in place. Also, it's not even subtle.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[rco3]

I did not say that it had to be a Deity. I just said that if it wasn't then it must be a person, group of persons, or a simple majority.

You asked how there can be right and wrong without god. Last I checked, that is a deity. Those non-deity examples you mention are all example of entities which have the power of legal and illegal, not right and wrong. You are again mistaken, and you again make my point for me. You continue to insist that there has to be some person or deity, some entity or group thereof, responsible for determining right from wrong. This is, again, the same "big daddy in the sky" claptrap which indicates your own moral immaturity, and your inability to see the difference between "legal" and "moral". Are you the CEO of a large corporation, or perhaps a lawyer?

For you to say that x strikes you as being right or moral without a base of measurement is no less a leap of faith than someone saying that "the bible strikes me as being true". You are saying I know it is right!

Read my statement again. I never said that my personal sense of right and wrong was developed without a framework or reference; I merely pointed out that god wasn't a part of it. You interpreted that to mean "without framework" because you still cannot comprehend the idea that right and wrong are not defined by your god. This is because you have been brainwashed.

You continue to attribute statements and meanings to me that I did not make and that are clearly contradictory to what I have stated and to reality, and then base poorly-constructed logical extrapolations upon them. You continue to assert that right and wrong are the same thing as legal and illegal. Swing, and a miss. Every single point that you've made is either flat wrong or completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I would be willing to continue this discussion with you if you were capable of a) accurately reading my words and b) thinking rationally for yourself. Since you continue to show that you can do neither, there is no point in carrying on. I shall respond no more to your comments. Wallow, sir, wallow in your ignorance and convince yourself that it is bliss.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[LWATCDR]

"Read my statement again. I never said that my personal sense of right and wrong was developed without a framework or reference; I merely pointed out that god wasn't a part of it."
What is that framework? You never answered that question? I simply stated that there must be a point of reference and if not " a God" then it must be a person or persons. Even if that person is just you it still a person or group of people.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Reziac]

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.

Re:Pffft...Mormons

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, RCO3, you need some reading comprehension tutorials or something.

Your responses indicate that you have already type cast the other party as "brainwashed," without even seeing the logic of his argument.

Regardless of the merits of either of your arguments, it seems that you have totally missed the boat.

Word of advice: keep the emotional baggage under a tighter lid...actually read his article this time before reposting.

Just some unwanted advice.

-- boy, it is great to dish out much needed advice from the comfort of the anonymous masses!

Omni magazine?

[Weaselmancer]

I'm definitely interested. My favorite magazine back when I was a kid was Omni. Loved the short story sci-fi they would always have there, and the creepy Giger artwork and all that. Totally bummed me out when they went all new-age.

I've been looking for a good magazine sci-fi fix ever since. This could be just what I've been looking for since I was a teenager, if they do it right.

Re:Omni magazine?

[JasonKChapman]

I've been looking for a good magazine sci-fi fix ever since. This could be just what I've been looking for since I was a teenager, if they do it right.

Was there something wrong with Asimov's or Analog or Fantasy and Science Fiction? They've been publishing the whole time and helping to keep the short sf market alive.

Granted that of these only Analog publishes science fact articles as well, but if you subscribe to those three and add Scientific American you're covered.

Re:Omni magazine?

[Ansonmont]

Some of Card's first work appeared in Omni (as well as other periodicals). I read "A Thousand Deaths" in the early 80s as a kid in Omni. Pretty freaky. I had a class of college freshmen English students read it in 2001. It held up pretty well.

Anyway, I just went to OSCs website to find the title of the story, and it seems like he also allows you to download electronic copies of selected books, short stories, reviews etc as long as you on have only one digital and one printed copy. Interesting.

Much of his writing is quite good. Some of it is dreadful. His whole Memory of Earth series was a bit too much like a Sunday School class. It seems like he is at his best when he is describing the life of a young, talented, but usually misunderstood genius boy.

-A

Re:Omni magazine?

[An ominous Cow art]

Quantum Muse is a web magazine along those lines.

Re:Omni magazine?

[kcarlin]

I've been looking for a good magazine sci-fi fix ever since.

My fix is Analog, the magazine where Heinlein and many others got their foot in the door. Single issues and subscription plans in PDF are available from fictionwise.com. I never lose an issue and can pack years worth when I go on the road for no extra weight or volume.

The guy is a fascist

[The Great Alonzo]

He's a complete asshole, his politics are slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, when I read this article ( http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-05-15-1 .html ) I binned the few books I had of his.
There's no room in the 21st century for animals like him, except maybe in the Shite House.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[Anonymous Coward]

What an open-minded, 21-st century liberal view you have! Very tolerant too!

Re:The guy is a fascist

[Banishedwun]

That's the problem with most "artists", but nobody says you have to agree with an artist's politics or views. Why can't you(we) just appreciate the good things? Whether it be a movie, book (Ender's Game was great), music, or whatever. If I "binned" the material of every "artist" who had different politics or views than I did then there would be very slim pickings.

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.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[bani]

that's just it though. ender's game was not great. it was incredibly two dimensional, shallow, and telegraphed everything light years away. osc took a fad of the times (video games) and wrote a story around it. thing is, it was already a cliche by the time he had got to it. it's way, way cliche now.

he did know his target audience though -- angsty teens. ender's game appeals strongly to teens, because it's a story about getting ultimate revenge on bullies. what angsty bullied teen doesn't love a story like that?

oh and before you accuse me of dissing ender's game "just because you don't like his politics" -- i read ender's game and concluded it was mediocre fluff about a decade before I ever discovered osc was an asshat - or anything else about him for that matter. osc's political views have zero bearing on my conclusion ender's game is doggie poo.

there are many, many SF stories which are "great". ender's game is not one of them.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[khallow]

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.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[ooze]

Just that Tom Cruise never was on an enjoyable movie. I have been told he wasn't half bad in Magnolia, but that I haven't seen yet. The furthest I would go is, that Tom Cruse was in a few movies that could have been good, if it wasn't for him being in them. He is just flat out a terrible actor. See Rain Man where you see him next to Dustin Hoffman. It jumps into your face whenever you see him "I can't act!". Or Vanilla Sky. That movie got a lot of problems and was one of the worst I have ever seen. But the main problem it has is, that it has to rely on the leading role being a good actor. Too bad the leading role was given to Tom Cruise.

The old Michale Jackson records are still some of the best out there. I can't comment on O.J. Simpson's football. And I can even enjoy a lot of passages from the Bible, although all it's authors where either religous nutheads or freaking hypocrites.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[monkeyfarm]

Why not just burn his book then? I love when liberals that want to shove all forms of "open thinking" and "alternative lifestyles" down MY throat, are the same lefto-fascists that can't STAND to even consider an alternative point of view that differs from their Air-America spoon fed pablum.

Perhaps the guy is right leaning? I've read his stuff, and I've read the cookery that talks about how EG is some kind of bio of Hitler, apology of Hitler, whatever. Whatever. Here's more tinfoil.

As for that article, care to point out what's wrong with it? I don't see any of his points as being demonstrably incorrect. Why not show me if you have some time after your little lefto book burning.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[Wilk4]

His politics are left? based on that article you referenced?

Out of curiosity, what was it specifically that you disagreed with about that article? (no, I'm not claiming I agree or not, just curious what got you so mad from that one)

Re:The guy is a fascist

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey hey now...either it's shoved down the throat, or it's spoon fed...pick one please if you back black/white forms of thinking...or both if you like to confuse yourself with your DailyTao Widget..

Some people view "alternate points of view" as something alternate to the mainstream (like something new that's never been pondered before).

And some people view "alternate" as that which is alternate to leftism or rightism.

It's that black/white/shades of grey thing...

If life was so easy to decipher I wouldn't have to type in "pottery" when I submitted this posting.

Re:The guy is a fascist

[nzhavok]

You might think that it's a particularly great book, but in general people seem to like it. It's up there with other fantasy books like Lord of the Rings, A Song of Fire and Ice, Dune and Discworld *.

The book Enders Game probably wasn't the strongest of the series (IIRC it was expanded from a short story to fill the requirements of the second book in the series), however if all you took away from reading it was a shallow story about beating bullies then it seems to me you may be a poor reader.

* source THE INTERNET TOP 100 SF/FANTASY LIST

Re:The guy is a fascist

[bani]

well yeah, and britney spears is a top seller and won a grammy too. doesn't mean I'd define her as an excellent artist -- just popular.

i give as much creedence to ender's game on the list there as I do for britney spears. :P

Re:The guy is a fascist

[nzhavok]

that's a fair point :)

Ummm...

[KDan]

Ok, so Orson Scott Card is a great author... but how is this groundbreaking? There are numerous webzines that publish quality stories, out there...

Try Duotrope's digest to find them.

Daniel

Re:Ummm...

[mangus_angus]

Ok, so Orson Scott Card is a great author...


He's a great author for the first book in a series. Seems like he loses steam after that. Just look at the Ender series, and Enders Shadow (Bean) series. Both started out strong, but just got worse and worse with each one.

Re:Ummm...

[KDan]

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

Re:Ummm...

[rattboi]

I don't think it's just the first books in his series, it's just sometimes he's hit-or-miss.

For example, in the Ender Saga, yes Xenocide and Speaker for the Dead were slow, but I thought it was all worth it for Children of the Mind.

Also, in the Homecoming series, I thought Earthfall was awesome, but Earthborn was crap.

Re:Ummm...

[Moofie]

Why does it have to be groundbreaking in order to be worthwhile?

Re:Ummm...

[mforbes]

I'll second everything you've said, but I can still see this resource as being an excellent place to get a new author's name known before moving on to better houses with better licensing terms.

There aren't that many short-fiction magazines on the market today, so each additional one to be brought forth is worth celebrating.

Not that OSC would read slashdot (that would require an ability to listen to viewpoints other than your own), but as an open comment to him anyway: I, for one, welcome our new... oh wait, wrong comment. I, for one, want to offer you my best wishes in this endeavour. Regardless of your personal stake in it, or your own failure or success concerning it, may it give birth to many fine writing careers.

And may these new authors please please please be able to create characters I can care about? I'm 3/4 the way through Alastair Reynold's Revelation Space and I still don't care what's going to happen to anyone!

Re:Ummm...

[Drakkenfyre]

While I'm hugely for the rights of the author (which is why I don't get along so well with the other editors at the annual book publishers' BBQ), this is pretty standard in SF. However, lots of publications don't spell it out in the contract. But whether it says it or not, in SF--and likely in other fiction markets--it is expected that your story not show up anywhere else for one whole year.

Re:Ummm...

[KDan]

Not contradicting you, but how do you get it in yearly anthologies then??

Daniel

Re:Ummm...

[Drakkenfyre]

No worries! Yearly anthologies are considered so prestigious (Well, the ones by Hartwell and Dozois and probably some that aren't coming to mind) that it's allowed. There's always that intro or note that goes along with the story that says, "This story appeared in the March issue of F&SF." So it's promotion. It's also very important come Hugo voting time.

However, if you were to take the story you had published in F&SF or Analog or whatever and put out a collection of your own short stories, or sell it to another magazine, or get published in a theme anthology concurrently, they would likely think very hard about publishing with you again. Of course, you can sell it before the year's out, but it should not appear in print or online.

And so in the case of a well-known years' best anthology, it's only let slide that the one year might be as little as five months. Hartwell's comes out in May, and if your story came out in January of the previous year, that's over 17 months that the story has lain dormant.

It's that way in regular publishing, too. We just put out the second of a series of young adult horror anthologies, and some were reprints that we couldn't put in the first one, even though they weren't bound by the hard rule of contract law. And we'd be pretty miffed if any of them went ahead and sold one of those stories and it was published before a year was up. Unless, of course, the CBC called and said, "Oh, we so love that story, xxxxxxx, and would love to acquire the rights to broadcast a dramatization of it." Because then our sales figures would just about double.

I can dream, can't I?

Re:Ummm...

[KDan]

Thanks for the info!

I'll bear that in mind when I publish my best-seller that will be so good it's selected for all the anthologies of that year...

I can dream too, can't I? ;-)

Daniel

Re:Ummm...

[Drakkenfyre]

:D "Those who dare to dream, dare to do."

Good luck! And remember to submit to the top markets first. :)

Hmmmm, I wonder if Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show counts towards SFWA qualification...
*Drakkenfyre does a little dreaming of her own*

Card's Ideals

[Anonymous Coward]

Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories, author's rights, and trust in people's honesty...

...and flagrant homophobia.

Re:Card's Ideals

[Anonymous Coward]

"Homophobia" is a word coined by George Weinberg for the express purpose of stigmatizing those who oppose the political goals of certain homosexuals. If you are offended by homosexuals walking down your main street in assless chaps exhibiting lewd behavior on "gay pride" day you're branded a homophobe.

The same people who oppose that kind of behavior by homosexuals are generally also opposed to titty bars and whorehouses, which at least do business behind closed doors. But nobody calls them "heterophobes".

Re:Card's Ideals

[BushCheney08]

I think you got something backwards there. The same people who are opposed to that kind of behavior also claim to be opposed to titty bars and whorehouses, yet frequent them when they get a chance.

Re:Card's Ideals

[batlock666]

...and flagrant homophobia

I never understood his homophobia. Didn't he write Songmaster, the gayest scifi book ever written?

Re:Card's Ideals

[smooth wombat]

those who oppose the political goals of certain homosexuals.

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.

Re:Card's Ideals

[halltk1983]

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.

The Church is against this too. I am a Mormon, I have *many* homosexual friends, and we agree to disagree about it. They know how I stand, I know how they stand, and we are okay with that. They do their marches, and I send letters. I don't agree with the idea of same sex "marriages", and calling couples "families", but you know something? Neither do most of my homosexual/bisexual friends. They agree that a "family" is a father, mother, and maybe some children. I am a convert, wasn't a member until I was 21, yet I have never been to a "titty bar" because I disagree with the idea. It isn't something I support. But I don't condemn people for going to them. That is not my place. If it is wrong, as I believe, then it will be sorted out when we die. But that doesn't mean that I have to support it. In fact I am quite offended by public nudity, *including* Mardi Gras. There is nothing wrong with the human body, but I think people should have more self-respect.

I do denounce the lifestyle. I disagree with it. But I do not denounce the people. I don't think they should be gathered and shot, nor do I think that they should be unable to find work. I don't even withhold my friendship. But I will not fight on their side when they ask to call a same-sex union a "marriage" and the union that results a "family" because these definitions are contrary to my own. And you know, because I am not harming directly through withholding my support, it is my *right* to do so, just as it is their *right* to be as they are. I will not persecute them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.

Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?

Re:Card's Ideals

[Joe Decker]

"Homophobia" is a word coined by George Weinberg for the express purpose of stigmatizing those who oppose the political goals of certain homosexuals.

To the contrary, one can read Weinberg's express reasons for coining the word in interviews such as this one.

Re:Card's Ideals

[Snocone]

I will not persecute them. But I disagree with the lifestyle.

Heh. Yes, you've put your finger nicely on the problem there. Sometime in the last two-three decades the definition of "tolerance" has changed from 'tolerating', as you display here, to the necessity to actively approve the behaviour in question. A rather intriguing proposition when the behaviour in question is multiculturalism, to say the least; note that nobody ever criticizes Muslims for their anti-homosexual stances, for instance.

Am I a bigot? Will you deny me my right to believe as I choose? Am I less human than they?

Well, by current standards, yes indeed you are. Doubleplusbadthink! Express that kind of thing in polite society these days, and it's off to the reeducation camps and show trials for you! Well, "sensitivity training sessions" and "public apologies", anyways, but I'm sure the actual camps and trials are closer than you'd believe...

For what nothing it's worth, I'm with you that a reasonable standard of "tolerance" is, well, 'tolerating', but then again I'm such a hardcore libertarian that my response to the whole gay marriage thing is "What the hell business does government have sticking its nose into any kind of personal private arrangements individuals want to call 'marriage' anyways? Let's eliminate ALL laws concerned with marriage, then they have NOTHING to bitch about!" which is pretty much as much beyond the pale of acceptable opinion as yours is, so there you go.

Re:Card's Ideals

[halltk1983]

Thank you, sir, and I am also a libertarian. I think marriage is the responsibility of churches, and civil unions the realm of the gov't for all people. And the only reason for Civil Unions is default denotation of beneficiary in the event of death or extreme disablity.

Re:Card's Ideals

[Moofie]

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".

Re:Card's Ideals

[Urusai]

Yes, but gay people are icky, so it is OK.

Re:Card's Ideals

[halltk1983]

then we agree fully. As you see in my above post, I am libertarian. The go't needs to get out of this. And if we used the fair tax ( http://www.fairtax.org/ ) than we wouldn't have to worry about tax breaks at all.

Re:Card's Ideals

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a convert, wasn't a member until I was 21...

I do denounce the lifestyle. I disagree with it. But I do not denounce the people. I don't think they should be gathered and shot, nor do I think that they should be unable to find work. I don't even withhold my friendship.

Wow... You're definitely not the typical Mormon. At least, not the typical Mormon from Utah.

I've lived in Utah for most of my life and I'm not Mormon. I'm in my 30's, I have a wife and two children, and live in an average middle-class home in an average middle-class neighborhood. Most of my neighbors will not even look me in the eye because I don't go to church. I can only imagine how they would treat someone who was openly gay.

Speaking of medicine...

[antic]

Anyone got some intergalactic medicine for their server?

well designed site...

[jkind]

Hope it takes off.. Here's a free story idea.. A short story written from the perspective of an Ethernet Frame. Would be no doubt scary, but also educational.

Re:well designed site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better make it a switched network, or the story might be too short due to a collision.

First Post

[Anonymous Coward]

First Post

lnigGa

[Anonymous Coward]

of JordanX Hubbard they are Come on Errors. Future I has ground to a would take about 2 And exciting;

You arer kidding, right?

[N8F8]

Card's site actually looks like a real magazine.

a very nice bunch of people

[wiredog]

And they don't go to extreme lenghts to try to convert you. Once it's clear that you're not interested they leave you alone.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[Oscillaters]

As someone who grew up in the metaphorical shadow of the World Trade Center and now lives less than two miles from Temple Square in Salt Lake City - and thus whose workplace is at least 50% LDS - I can affirm this. They're culturally backwards and irresponsibly prolific, but other than that they make fine neighbors: polite, industrious, and hygienic.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[SirChive]

Polite, industrious and hygenic are not the most meaningful of qualities when it comes to describing essential humanity. Most Nazi party members in Hitler's Germany were certainly polite, industrious and hygenic.

Had a lot of Mormon friends as a kid. I moved a lot and they always went out of their way to be very welcoming to new people. They made great friends. But when I got older and would talk to them about their beliefs I was totally freaked. "You REALLY believe all that stuff?", I'd ask. They'd just look at me with big eyes, pitying me because I could not see the light.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[Scrameustache]

And they don't go to extreme lenghts to try to convert you. Once it's clear that you're not interested they leave you alone.

That's probably because they'll just convert you post-mortem.
But they sure are a lot nicer than Jehova's Witnesses.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[thegameiam]

I wasn't ever able to really grok Mormon theology (I spent 10 years living in SLC), but boy I can tell you that the LDS church is doing something right, because in Utah, the Mormons are fantastically wonderful people - it's definitely the best place in the country to get a flat tire.

I think the Church has done a great job of making honestly good people out of most of its members, so in that they should be counted as quite effective and successful.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[Anonymous Coward]

That's probably because they'll just convert you post-mortem.
Yeah. The nonbelievers become servants for those who are awarded rule over their own planet. One man can't run a whole planet on his very own you know.

Re:a very nice bunch of people

[swillden]

That's probably because they'll just convert you post-mortem.

In the interest of accuracy, Mormons don't believe that baptizing the dead by proxy "converts" them. Rather, it merely provides the baptismal ordinance for those who decide of their own free will to convert. For those who don't want the baptism, it has no effect. Even some of those who do decide they want the baptism may not be able to make use of it, because acceptance of Christ in the afterlife is only an option for those who did not have a chance to accept Him and be properly baptized during their lives. Those that had a chance, and blew it, probably don't get another even if someone does the baptism for them.

Orson Scott Card is an asshat.

[Anonymous Coward]

Period.

Re:Orson Scott Card is an asshat.

[Quiet_Desperation]

You should have called him an insane rightwing racist homophobe. Then you would have ben modded Informative. :-\

nope

[KDan]

People don't read SF stories for the glossy paper/nice layout.

(I'm not suggesting Card's magazine doesn't have good content - but so do many free webzines out there, if only because they pay roughly the same rates)

Daniel

Re:nope

[N8F8]

I know when I'm browsing the stacks at the local bookstore I'll look past books with crappy covers -if I'm not familiar with the author anyhow. I doubt I'm unusual in that respect.

Re:nope

[KDan]

You aren't, but this is webzines we're talking about...

Daniel

Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic. Since I found out, it's hard to enjoy his taking me on a tour of another person's mind.

Re:Deal With It

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, what's wrong with what he's sayig? Is ad hominem attacks the only recourse you have? He's just saying to use the democratic process, is all.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

No, he's saying some people have the right to be married, and others don't, because some people hear voices telling them to be bigots. Like "gays have the right to marry, just like anyone else, as long as they marry someone of the opposited gender, like they always have". If you want to score some credibility for Card, let's see him denounce Schwarzenegger, who just vetoed the law clarifying that California marriages aren't bigoted, after "the democratic process" let the people pass it. Kinda inconvenient, huh? Kinda insane religious nuttery. When people are nuts, and say nutty things, those homos get added to my attack list.

Re:Deal With It

[cyrille32]

I only enjoyed ender's game, honestly the rest is paper waste, ive been through 'alvin maker' and 'memories of earth', and its boring as hell, i had ordered them all from amazon so i decided to read them all, but theres nothing happening and the whole thing could easily have been condensed in one volume for each 'saga'. This is just money making by filling the max. amount of paper. And for his political views... I only read one text he wrote about the 'war on terrorism' and it made me feel bad i enjoyed that much ender's game...

Re:Deal With It

[Absentminded-Artist]

Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic.

From the article you quote: The fanatical Left will insist that anyone who upholds the fundamental meaning that marriage has always had, everywhere, until this generation, is a "homophobe" and therefore mentally ill.

Sounds like you're on your way to proving that statement true. You don't by any chance contribute to MoveOn.org, do you?

Of course, I jest, but your assessment may be a tad extreme. Religious he is, but insane fanatic? The evidence you presented (i.e. his article) seemed reasonably stated, whether you agreed with his position or not. His article is filled with statements that show he is aware that others may not agree with his viewpoint - not the act of an insane person. If the article has any flaw, it is that it too often devolves into overgeneralized statements void of evidence just like the other side of the argument he is complaining of.

Re:Deal With It

[OakDragon]

You know what's worse than his opinions, and how he forms his ideas? I'll tell you.

It's taking those opinions and ideas, and chopping them up into tiny paragraphs. Paragraphs that contain 2 to 3 lines each. Then these paragraphs stretch over the width of the page.

The Header that is not a Header

Another pet peeve: text that is clearly a header, but is in the same font size and style as all the other text. I guess they have yet to master the <H1> tag.

Thing like that just cheese me.

Re:Deal With It

[brucifer]

How can this be modded informative? References to this article and others come up EVERY TIME Card is mentioned in a /. article. What is interesting is that people are so ready to discount anything a person does if their political/ideological/religous views differ from them. I am really finding it difficult to see the relevance of Card's "insane rightwing religious" fantatisism to the fact that he is putting out a quarterly Sci-Fi magazine.

Re:Deal With It

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice strawman. Just in time for Hallowe'en too.

Re:Deal With It

[Dread_ed]

I am not trying to flame here, but what you are saying is that because you disagree with his ideas you cannot get past your own bigotry to enjoy admittedly good writing.

My beliefs are pretty "out there" myself and I learned at an early age to accept entertainment and knowledge from many different sources, even those who are opposed to my beliefs. The secret is to consider the material in its own light and realize that diversity of viewpoints is a good thing to be exposed to. Without diversity of viewpoints it is impossible to evaluate your own viewpoint without catastropic myopia.

If it is a novel/movie you are dealing with, enjoy the characters and the story. When you are done, if you are so inclined, deconstruct the novel in light of the writer's opinions to see if there are any agendas included, or characters that you think are embodiments of certain virtues, etc. Even more fun is to group those people who you consider to be "religious fanatics" and evaluate how they fare against their "non-fanatical" brethren. In this way you can derive even more pleasure from the work of someone who you intensely disagree with than from someone you have no opposition to.

Oddly enough I have found information about Card that I find even more disturbing than the religious beliefs you point to. This is what I am refering to. Regardless, it won't stop me reading his novels.

Art is art. The only person hurt by you not being able to enjoy his novels is you.

Re:Deal With It

[Retired Replicant]

Agreed. Lefties can't seem to be able to disagree with someone politically without it growing into a general hatred of everything about the person. Although I am a a moderate/libertarian Republican and I disagree with Bruce Springsteen's opposition to the war in Iraq and his support for John Kerry in the last election, it doesn't stop me from being a fan and continuing to enjoy his music.

Re:Deal With It

[abb3w]

I only enjoyed ender's game, honestly the rest is paper waste

You might enjoy First Meetings In the Enderverse. My local (Charlottesville, VA) B&N had the hardcover in the bargain/clearance books area for ~$5. It consists of four novellas, at least two published previously in Analog SF Magazine, and the other two perhaps published elsewhere. Don't pay even full Amazon cover price for it, though. Check for a used or bargain bin-copy, or patronize your local library.

The main reason I think you might find it worthwhile is because it includes the original novella length version of Ender's Game... frankly, one I think is much more subtle and elegant than the novel. (I also picked it up because my copy of the original Analog Magazine is getting a little dog eared.)

I rather enjoyed "Ender's Shadow" as well — Card's second visit to the story of Ender's Game, from a different character perspective — but the Hegemon-related followups struck me as weaker, in much the same way that Speaker For the Dead struck me as weaker than Ender's Game. I would tend to agree that far too much of Card's work is not worth paying even new paperback prices for. Also, given his political stance on a number of issues, I prefer picking up his works in the clearance bin (for which sales authors usually get almost no royalties) or at the local library, rather than as new hardcovers.

Re:Deal With It

[Tankko]

Like the parent, I refuse to support bigots like Card. Sorry. He's a great author, but I have to draw the line, for my own moral conscience.

I think it's unfair to say the only person you're hurting is yourself. If we continue to support people with bigoted views, putting money in their pockets, looking the other way because we like something they do, they will not only continue, but gain influence.

But I suppose you're one of those people that hates MS, but bought a XBox and every game that comes out. We have a word for that, it's hypocrisy.

Re:Deal With It

[Scrameustache]

Orson Scott Card is a great writer, but he's also an insane rightwing religious fanatic.

I think he's neither.
He's a writer who's done some good work, and he's a right-wing believer, but I don't think he's great, nor is he a fanatic as far as I've seen.

The last I read of his was the "Worthing Saga", which featured a race of ubermen recognised by their blue eyes... yeah, er, that's nice Orson, reeeeal nice.

Re:Deal With It

[jcr]

Well, I read the essay you linked to, and while I saw things there I don't agree with, I don't see evidence of insanity, either. Could you be more specific?

-jcr

Re:Deal With It

[RexRhino]

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.

Re:Deal With It

[Dread_ed]

BUY USED BOOKS.

Re:Deal With It

[thegameiam]

insane? naw... his columns are always quite rational, whether they're right or wrong.

now, "rightwing" is certainly true, and of course a "fanatic" is anyone who has strong opinions with which one disagrees, right?

-David

Re:Deal With It

[indifferent children]

What is interesting is that people are so ready to discount anything a person does if their political/ideological/religous views differ from them.

Yes. Hitler was a marvelous painter, and we should praise his creativity. Maybe put up a statue, or contribute to a memorial fund in his name.

You can't mod me down for this. Godwin's Law must be followed.

Re:Deal With It

[cherokee158]

Why does everyone get so excited about homosexual marriage? I think the whole idea is rather silly, but in the end (ouch) it utterly fails to concern me. I figure it is self-limiting behavior, from an evolutionary standpoint. (Even if gays adopt, no kid raised by fags is going to survive the fifth grade). So why legislate it at all? It's not like those little pink houses are going to suddenly crowd you out of suburbia unless you hire a decorator named Armand.

Banning gay marriage is like outlawing suicide, only less effective and slightly funnier.

Re:Deal With It

[thegameiam]

Now THAT is funny :)

I approve of going after writers for poor HTML... they're violating Niven's rule of "if you have something to say, say it clearly."

-David

Re:Deal With It

[Anonymous Coward]

This has to be one of the most horribly stupid and ignorant posts I've ever read on slashdot...

Re:Deal With It

[gid-goo]

Yeah, the conservatives are great at supporting those they disagree with. Look at Clinton, when he was fighting terrorism the thugs in congress were 100% behind him. Or Howard Stern. Michael Powell did a great job of supporting someone he disagreed with. Or The Dixie Chicks. You guys did a great job of supporting their right to speak.

The "tolerance" of the right is just another myth like their support of states rights, their love of small government, their ability to be fiscally capable, the left wing bias of the media and the victimization of righties in academia. All bullshit.

As for Orson Scott Card. I kind of like the last Enders Game book about the other kid. But overall I don't think he's a very good writer and his opinions suck.

Re:Deal With It

[davide marney]

Odd. In my travels, the insanse rightwing religious nuts have been a lot more tolerant of other people's opinions than the insane leftwing secular nuts. A religious nut will actually listen to what you have to say -- so they can try and convert you. A secular nut will just call you names.

Frankly, I'd rather be listened to.

Re:Deal With It

[pilkul]

The "tolerance" of the right is just another myth like their support of states rights, their love of small government, their ability to be fiscally capable,

These aren't so much myths as reflections of deep divisions within the "right". Traditional conservatives care about this stuff, the new breeds of religious/foreign policy conservatives could care less. Bush is definitely in the latter.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Card is a great writer, so of course his article "seem[s] reasonably stated". There, I've accounted for his style - doesn't that discredit it? No, his insane religious fanaticism discredits it, and him.

His position, that homosexuals can't marry due to a religious prescription, is insane religious fanaticism. Only a few generations ago, miscegenation was outlawed, and religious theories about "Ham" and "Israeli Tribes" were used to justify that bigotry. Both bigotries were justified on the phobic (irrational fear) basis that other people marrying that way would debase one's own "traditional" marriage.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation 0
    40% Informative
    30% Troll
    10% Flamebait

OK, "Troll" is par for the course, just another TrollMod from Card fanboys who can't even write a rebuttal, and need to stay anonymous. But "Flamebait"? Orson, is that you? Surely you can do better than that. Like maybe a compelling few paragraphs told in the voice of a child leading a global war against his brother, for the love of his sister? You kinky bastard.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

The relevance is in the other paragraph, where I say how his bigotry blows my enjoyment of his writing. The "informative" bit is where I inform readers of exactly what kind of insane rightwing religious views Card publishes. Just as informative every time. Especially because most people probably haven't seen the other reference - likely the case with whoever mod'ed it that way.

What I find interesting is how people like you compartmentalize the the work of an artist, appreciating "getting inside his mind" in some works, but ignoring what else goes on in that mind in another work. Especially when Card's bigotry actually has relevance to your actual life (eg. your rights), unlike his science fiction (your entertainment). Although I suspect that you're just sympathetic to his view on marriage, so you're downplaying it as "irrelevant" when it's just embarassing.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

From that fascinating story to which you linked, that of course confirms what I posted about Card:
"So I took [_Ender's Game_] and read it. She was like that; if someone wanted to write about forgiving Hitler she wasn't the type to complain. It's a free country and all that. Just don't ask her to read past the point where she figures it out.

I'm not the type to complain that Card is writing. I'm the type to complain that I can't enjoy the product of a theofascist when I know about it. Although I do enjoy persian rugs and some Afghan art, it doesn't connect me to their religious themes. I tried _Speaker for the Dead_ and quit it because I just didn't relate, before I read Card's homophobia essay, and tried to read it again after, with repugnance. Now I can't read his work without thinking of him, just as I did in ignorance when I read _Ender's Game_. But now I think "ugh" when I think of him. Don't ask me to think of nutjobs like him after I've figured him out.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

It's his basic attitude which is insane (impossible for me to relate to, or understand). But it's illustrated in lots of specific passages like

"Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all"

as justification for prohibiting homosexuals to marry, when even the law doesn't prohibit it, because some religious people believe that god demands their government enforce their morals on other people. It's about as insane as the (ironic) commentary on freedom and economics, "rich and poor alike are free to sleep under bridges in this country". It's true, but betrays such obstinate denial of the injustice that anyone sympathizing with its literal statement is obviously a propagandist. But of course Card wouldn't agree.

FWIW, when I read a more detailed examination of Card's fascist bent, I felt like my feelings about the guy were confirmed. Just because most Mormons are just decent people, like any Americans, doesn't mean that fundamentalist Mormons with theofascist agendas and "master race" sympathies aren't dangerous lunatics.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Card wants to enshrine bigotry in the Constitution because an invisible spirit told him we should. The Republican Party's rightwingers (most of the party) support him. They all invoke gibberish to paint their position as reasonable, when it's just homophobia, bigotry (and some opportunistic politics along Nazi lines). That makes him an insane rightwing fanatic.

I'm perfectly willing to debate whether Card is an insane rightwing fanatic. His demands for national bigotry are insane, based on superstitious nonsense but presented as rational, and mandatory. I haven't tried or asked to suppress Card in any way - I just said that I can't read his fiction pleasurably anymore. In fact, I prefer bigots and theofascists to put their views in public, where they can be discredited, and watched. Because those people are the ones who suppress the opposition whenever they can, and are truly dangerous. We've learned enough about them to know they're dangerous, and that we don't have to "tolerate" their views when they're intolerable. Bigots and theofascists have taken enough power in this country already - we have no reason to tolerate them, and every reason not to.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

"Insane" means that I can't relate enough to his frame of reference to understand what he's saying the way he understands it. That's closely related to his fanaticism, which is just shorthand for his religious zealotry. Which is the bais for his homophobia - the arguments, anyway; I don't know why he's really so scared of homosexuals that he wants to deny their rights. Because his arguments have no rational basis or integrity. Just the trappings of deduction and historical assertions, underwritten by lots of omitted facts and logical implications.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

You don't know what a strawman argument is, Anonymous Cowardly lyin'.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, you get listened to by religious fanatics, then burned at the stake when you don't convert. Secular people invented "agree to disagree". You really have your rosary colored glasses on.

Re:Deal With It

[jcr]

Sorry, but the link above just goes to third-hand account of someone else calling him a fascist. I remain unconvinced.

-jcr

Re:Deal With It

[Dread_ed]

Knowing that Mel Gibson has many of the same beliefs are you going to boycott all of his movies?

Re:Deal With It

[davide marney]

Well, if secular people invented "agree to disagree", why do you see them calling people names all the time? I can't remember the last time I heard a reasoned voice from the left. Including -- sadly -- your own argument. Burned at the stake when you don't convert ? I mean, really ... that is so over the top, no one can listen to what you have to say.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, yes, after seeing Gibson reveal himself in _Passion of Gibson's Christ_, I can't watch even his Mad Max movies that I used to like. I see him, think "what an asshole", and the spell that lets me imagine the movie happening is broken. It's not a "boycott" - boycotts are organized pressure to achieve a specific goal. I have no goal with Gibson; I just don't enjoy seeing him on the screen anymore.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

You've got that "rightwinger binary disease". Where everything is black or white, either/or. Secular people invented acceptance of ideological differences, but of course that doesn't require all secular people, or any for that matter, to accept any ideological differences. The simple logic to that obvious relationship is evident to children, but not to the robotic people who insist on extremes when interpreting anything. But I understand that you need that kind of absolutist thinking to manage your denial. The kind of denial that insists that people didn't get burned at the stake for centuries for not converting, and will again if "secularists" are "balanced" by religious fanatics, as we see demanded by our vocal fanatic minority today. Fanatics who think no one can hear the people whose words frighten them so, just because they've plugged their own ears and scream.

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

Moderation -1
    30% Troll
    40% Informative
    10% Flamebait

It's perfectly clear that the "Troll" mod is now just an anonymous way to suppress a post the TrollMod doesn't like, anonymously, without having to post a disagreement. It has nothing to do with the meaning of "Troll" known to more experienced netizens. It's just a way to say "scary post that I don't like". TrollMods themselves are, of course, the worst incarnation of that Net phenom.

Re:Deal With It

[davide marney]

Look, not to turn this into anything personal, but just listen to the way you're talking:

You've got that "rightwinger binary disease" ...

[You fail to understand] simple logic .. [that] is evident to children...

you need ... absolutist thinking to manage your denial.

[You are a member of a] fanatic minority ... [who've] plugged their own ears and scream.

This is tolerance? This is acceptance of another's point of view? You don't know anything about me, and already you've judged that I'm some kind of fanatic?

I know that people on the left give themselves a lot of back-slaps for being open-minded, but in my personal experience, this is an accolade rarely deserved.

Re:Deal With It

[thegameiam]

That you cannot relate to something does not make it insane. Perhaps what you mean to say is "I don't understand Card, and I think his opinions suck."

Card is hardly a fanatic or a zealot - many sincere practitioners of any religion can appear that way to those who do not subscribe to those belief systems. c.f. "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill and

And then there's the word "homophobia." That's a loaded, innaccurate term - I'd venture to suggest that card isn't "scared" of homosexual behavior, he just "disapproves." There may be a small number of people for whom that term is appropriate, but most of the people who do not support permissive attitudes and policies on homosexual relationships aren't "scared" of anything. The term "homophobia" implies that the user of the term understands the recipient's motivies, which is presumptious - a fortiori, becuase there is necessarily a passionate disagreement. If you want a term to characterize opinions with which you disagree, how about "wrong" or the stronger "wrong-headed"?

As for "trappings of deduction and historical assertions, underwritten by lots of omitted facts and logical implications," physician, heal thyself.

-David

Re:Deal With It

[Doc Ruby]

"Permissive attitudes on homosexuality? Who are you to permit people to have sex with whichever consenting adult they want, or not? You are talking about homosexuality from a completely cramped position. You don't really know anything about why people oppose homosexuality - you don't understand why *you* feel the way you do. I don't expect you to accept that from me in a Slashdot post, but "homophobia" isn't just some buzzword - it's an accurate depiction of practically anyone opposed to another person's homosexuality except perhaps people harmed at a formative time by a homosexual.

You also don't understand insanity, either. Sanity is not some absolute state of mind, persistent throughout the ages, across the globe. Sanity is very much the relative state between people who share a frame of reference, allowing them to communicate. Without which, the "insane" cannot relate, cannot communicate, with the "sane". You are using "sanity" in its most facile, oversimplified sense, which is not useful for any understanding of in/sanity - it's only good for vilification. Again, I don't expect you to discard your strongly held belief about sanity, even though it's wrong. All I can do is point them out, and know that I did what I could. So I'm not going to get into any argument with you over what constitutes a "fanatic".

I'm not going to argue with you about "omitted facts", except to point out that you haven't indicated any, I haven't omitted facts which undermine my points, and you've been busy inventing what *I* meant in terms convenient to you. I could argue those with you, but given what you've demonstrated about your attitude towards facts, meanings, the way the mind works, I'm not really interested.

For funny anecdotes about OSC

[Xner]

Read "Orson Scott Card Has Always Been an Asshat" over at Kuro5hin.

What about Intergalactic Rap Battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Machine Vs. Man, Man Vs. Woman, and Woman Vs. Your Mother!!11

Re:What about Intergalactic Rap Battle?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's instupituous!

More Independent Sci-Fi

[Anitra]

Want to read more free/cheap sci-fi and fantasy?

Strange Horizons - a weekly e-magazine, donation-supported.

Futurismic - a monthly e-magazine (focused on futuristic stories and articles about future technology), also donation-supported.

I've been reading both of these for a few months now, and the stories are great! I'm planning to donate in their fund drives, because I think the quality is superb.

Re:More Independent Sci-Fi

[grammar fascist]

Want to read more free/cheap sci-fi and fantasy?

The problem is, cheap is too often the operative word. I've been reading them as well, and it's rather hit-and-miss. There are some real gems, of course, don't get me wrong.

On the other hand, I really liked every story in the first issue of the Medicine Show. It is one data point - but it's the first, and it shows real promise.

Re:More Independent Sci-Fi

[grammar fascist]

Sorry for the self-reply - but I forgot to add that $10/year isn't bad. Which is why I'm glad the GP wrote "more free/cheap sci-fi and fantasy" - but I think the $10 deal needs pointing out.

Author's rights WHAT?

[damned_mediocrity]

From the /. article summary: "Card wants your stories and art, not your copyright." Ummm, not to question the great slashdot editors, but this is *standard practice* for lit magazines, both in print and online. The author USUALLY retains the copyright for published work. Nothing unique here. Also, most print lit magazines only purchase first serial rights and/or some type of one-time anthology rights. Card's magazine purchases EVERYTHING, all rights, for an entire year. This agreement is actually worse for writers than what most publications offer. As for having all rights (except online rights, which they keep forever!!) returned to the author after a year, this seems great... except when you consider: a) for many print/web literary publications, rights return to the author immediately after publication. b) that the author won't be able to sell the story very easily if it's appeared in another magazine before. Editors want FIRST serial rights, so they can provide readers with unique, never-read-before content. When rights are returned to the author after a year, the author's not going to be able to do much with them, except for maybe putting the story in a print anthology. Sorry slashdot editors, but this looks like a not-so-hot deal for authors.

Re:Author's rights WHAT?

[nonsequitor]

The only times I've ever paid for sci-fi short stories were for collections of them in books. This business model would not deprive the writers of my money, assuming they are good enough for me to want to buy.

Permanent electronic rights means nothing to me as well. I have never read an e-book, though I have tried several times. There's nothing quite like a paper book, I don't think they'll ever replace that. I would never buy an e-book anyway, what if the reader program is no longer supported and none of the new programs support the old DRM scheme? I will always be able to read a book, assuming I don't lose my sight in a horrible accident.

Re:Author's rights WHAT?

[shadowpuppy]

With first serial rights, can a condition appear where the writer's story gets stuck in copyright limbo becasue the magazine never actually publishes it? And would this be resolved by the one year deal because if they don't publish it after a year you get your story back?

Re:Author's rights WHAT?

[damned_mediocrity]

This business model would not deprive the writers of my money, assuming they are good enough for me to want to buy.

Just to clarify... If you're buying the lit magazine, you're not paying the author directly. The author's already been paid. Short story writers published in lit mags get money on acceptance, but rarely get any royalties for sales of the magazine.

Intergalactic Medicine Show apparently gives the author royalties *if the story is anthologized.* This is different. This means that if they decide later on to publish a print collection and put your story in it, (or if they sell your story to antoher publishing house for a print collection), you will get a cut of the sales of that collection. The royalties are split between all authors in the collection. To me, this is the only part of the agreement that looks at all good for the author. The author doesn't have any control over where, who, when, and how the work is anthologized, but hell, at least they get paid a little.

As far as electronic rights go... For most publishers, electronic rights are usually just "web publishing" rights. E.g., I buy first serial and electronic rights for a story from you, then I publish your story in the print magazine and simultaneously post your story (or an excerpt) on the magazine's website. At this point, most publishers don't make money from the electronic version directly--they use it primarily as a marketing tool for the print version of the magazine. Again, authors usually don't get royalties from magazine sales.

In any case, my point was that this magazine actually purchases more rights from the author than any lit magazine I've ever heard of. Which can't be a good thing, can it? =)

Re:Author's rights WHAT?

[julesh]

With first serial rights, can a condition appear where the writer's story gets stuck in copyright limbo becasue the magazine never actually publishes it?

Yes, and the same as can happen with film rights (and frequently does -- studios often buy film rights to a story and then never produce the film, whereas it's rarer for a magazine).

And would this be resolved by the one year deal because if they don't publish it after a year you get your story back?

Yes. Most contracts have a time limit on the period during which the magazine has the right to publish the story, after that you'd be free to sell to another magazine. In this case the one year would take effect.

In reality, purchased stories are almost always printed, except when the magazine goes out of business -- at which point, the license may be cancelled anyway.

Re:Author's rights WHAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You're mistaking what copyright is.
The author owns the copyright as soon as the story is written. That means he owns the work, and he decide who can "copy" the work.
He gives the magazine first serial rights, which means that the magazine is the first serial (ie, newspaper/magazine/periodical) which is allowed to publish it.
The author is free to sell the other rights, INCLUDING anthology rights, regardless of whether or not the magazine ever publishes the story. He can publish it in his own collection if he chooses whenever he wants. He can sell branded merchandise, etc.

There are a great many print rights that an author can sell; however, both TV and film fall under film rights, which is why so many scripts can be bought but never made into movies/etc.

In general we agree, but this gets to his work too

[ianscot]

There's a special place in the world of artistic endeavor, though, for authors and artists whose egos and world views come to vitiate their work, spoiling it for me. For example:

Whether it be a movie, book (Ender's Game was great), music, or whatever.

Lots of OSC's critics argue that "Ender's Game" amounts to an extended apologia for Hitler. (Look in the little outline at point 7.1.) Given OSC's general world view, yeah, that does affect my reading of the novel.

It's also hard for me to idolize Bobby Fischer at this point. Sad but true. And no matter how cool a modern artist is, no matter how amazing her use of material and so on, if she's constantly referring directly and indirectly to how much she detests Serbs/Croats/Kosovar Albanians, it'll detract from the work for me. I can't just shrug and say the colors are really well-chosen and leave with just the good, not if she's shoving her ideology down my throat.

Can anyone but a sicko really want OJ's autograph on a football now? I was a kid when he was huge, I remember how cool he was then. Only makes me wince now.

Doesn't make the artist an "animal," but it does compromise any satisfaction from the art.

Re:In general we agree, but this gets to his work

[FidelCatsro]

Disagreeing with someone's politics is not always a reason to not read their works (though invariably people add their on spin on any story they write ,which could make it less enjoyable for an opposing view point) ,However I would not pay for any services he provides or books he writes ,due to the fact he may use the money to lobby . I don't want to fund people with views like that .

Re:The guy is a fascist--not

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read the peice cited in the grand parent and I agree with the parent.

My comment is that Slashdot has an abundance of Smartland natives, and those of my
ilk are forced into anonymos cowardace or silence.

Riiiiight.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if by some mistake of birth, you should happen to be a member of that sect and decide you don't want to be affiliated with it anymore, prepare for the onslaught.

After my wife and I decided we'd had enough, we had nonstop unwanted calls and visits by guys in dark suits. Each and every time they came to our door we told them that we weren't interested, weren't coming back and that we wanted the harassment to stop. The bishop even told us that it was his "ecclesiastical duty" to continue the unwanted calls and visits until we wrote a letter resigning our membership. WTF??

After we wrote the letter, and they wouldn't accept an email, then the vicious rumors started and our Mormon friends stopped talking to us. It may be all smiles going in, but it's all daggers going out.

Yeah, nice folks. Love 'em to death.

Dude, me too.

[gomel]

And I just counted that I have 14 books by OSC on the shelf next to my elbow. So sad. I even met OSC twice at book fairs.

Recently I read some right-wing lunatic, post-9/11 columns by him. No attempt at reasoning, only 'must follow the leader; dissent is treason' kind of diatribe. That's when I noticed that he is an authoritarian.

Did you notice that in his books, democracies are the weaklings and loosers, and the strong (or shrewd) win? And what's with this fascination with genocide?

Re:Dude, me too.

[jandrese]

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.

Re:Dude, me too.

[scottennis]

Genocide? What about his fascination with young boys?

Re:Dude, me too.

[halltk1983]

I actually pulled from his book something very different. I had to read the book a few times, but there are definate undertones where he comes across shadowing the authoritarian Hegemony as a Bad Thing(TM). Such as the rejection of religion, the punishments for more than two children, and espescially the monitoring of all children. More so he shows how such things as these negatively affect those under it's influence, ie the difficulties the parents have with religion (baptism of the children and ensuing arguements), how many children they have (the obvious discomfort of not having more in the face of the financial burdens) the fact that Ender as a "third" could not have gotten an education without support from the government, as though "thirds" are lower life forms than the others, and even the intolerance proliferant through the system against these "thirds" shown even by the children and the system's refusal to put an end to it. I think Ender's Game shows clearly what is wrong with an authoritarian government and is a strong testament of why we need a government that does not squelch us.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Ttue. Weber doesn't think very much of Democracy, with the "Peeps" (the bad guys) being modelled on a weird combination of the United States and the French Revolution. But then again, he doesn't think very much of the British-style Monarch he's created, either. It's just that few people see that he doesn't like any system of government because his Star Kingdom is the "good guy" of the moment. All you need to do is look at all the Earls and Prime Ministers, and other "evil" characters he's created to see his real position. Which is (to put it succintly): Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That being said, I don't think Weber has a full grasp of the US Federalist Democracy. While Socialism has definitely been a powerful rot on the powerhouse that has traditionally been the US government, he tends to miss how truly powerful the US Constitution is in our law. Not to mention the fact that enough people care to cause a revolt when the socialist programs get out of hand. It's amazing how fast our government has been flipping between democrats and republicans in an attempt by the public to balance the views. :-)

Re:Dude, me too.

[fiannaFailMan]

General Jack D. Ripper: Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No, I don't think I do, sir, no.
General Jack D. Ripper: He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Re:Dude, me too.

[orderb13]

Democracies do get in the way of the chain of command, it is their job. I assume you are referring to the Harrington novels. If you look at it the REAL villians aren't democrats. The villians are either the corrupt democrats or the evil totalitarian rulers. He does a pretty good job of pointing out that evil people exist everywhere and that ANY goverment type can be "good" if "good" people are in charge, or "evil" if "evil" people are in charge.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Rayonic]

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.

The cold manipulation of Ender in "Ender's Game" is hardly high praise for militarism. And the following three books in the series are actually even more anti-war and "liberal". (It is revealed that annihilating the "bugs" was wrong, for example, and Ender goes from being famous to being infamous.)

Not that I'd describe Card as authoritarian anyways.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read the chapter in Ender's Game where he shoots people unable to tell IT'S from ITS? Oh, it was a pretty good part of the book!

Re:Dude, me too.

[thegameiam]

Hmm - when I read his columns, I see a lot of rational argument. Now, it's forceful, and he certainly has controversial opinions, but it always seems rational to me...

I certainly would say that you're reading his books on a pretty shallow level to see Democracies as all "weak": re-read the "homecoming" series, and for that matter, reread "Ender's Game" - you'll notice that the Formics are NOT-democratic (being a hive mind and all), and they fall against the superior talents of a group of people.

-David

Re:Dude, me too.

[thegameiam]

It's not Democracy which looks bad in his books, it's *ALL* governments: reread the "shadow" series and you'll see what I mean. Nearly every government is shown to be much less than the sum of its parts.

-David

Re:Dude, me too.

[Pxtl]

Let's not forget Jerry Pournelle. Every non-military character in a Pournelle book seems to be just an effigy of an establishment he want's to tear a hole into. Weak, useless academics, obstructivist politicians, and whiny liberals all exist to keep the heroic military men from saving the universe.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Moofie]

"he tends to miss how truly powerful the US Constitution is in our law"

Well, he's not alone there. Most Congressbeasts miss that too.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Moofie]

So anybody who writes 'coming of age' tales is a pederast?

Re:Dude, me too.

[scottennis]

Thou sayest.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Moofie]

That was clearly your implication. Don't dodge it: Defend it.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Doc Ruby]

Another interesting trope can be found in many of the responses to your post to which I too replied (with this message). Look how many posters deny Card's authoritarian glorification, while glorifying the authoritarians in America. I think the overarching theme is "denial". Card's apparently a Mormon fundamentalist. Uncannily consistent with his SF is his religion, which says that god is from another, distant planet in our "plane" (reachable by rockets, not just after death by prayer and faith). He's nuts, and he's not alone.

Re:Dude, me too.

[scottennis]

Okay. You got me. I think that a coming of age story is fine when you are talking about boys who are at or nearing puberty.

Card's stories, particularly the Ender stories, focus on very, very young boys. He puts them in very, very adult situations. Would the stories have been just as effective with older boys? IMHO, yes. Not even the sybaritic Heinlein exploits children in his stories to the extent that Heilein does. Starship Troopers, to me, is in part a great coming of age story.

Putting a child in an adult situation in writing is just as disgusting as taking or drawing a picture of a child in an adult situation. It certainly says something about the mentality of the person doing the photography, drawing, or writing. Does it automatically make them a pederast? No. Does it make them suspect? Absolutely.

Re:Dude, me too.

[scottennis]

oops. Should read ". . . to the extent that Card does." Also, I think it's important to note that Card is writing fiction. If he was writing about the children soldiers of the Congo, it might be acceptable. But, since he is writing fiction, we should realize that he has a choice. He doesn't have to exploit children in his stories. If you argue that the story is primarily about the exploitation of children, then I think he should choose a different medium. My read of Ender's Game is that it is not primarily about the exploitation of children.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Moofie]

Hmm. Ender's Game talks about a young boy. Ender's Shadow talks about a young boy. The other books? Not so much with the young boys.

"Adult situations"? Clearly, not the sort of "adult situations" that would be totally inappropriate.

You're broadly overgeneralizing the work, and making fairly specious claims.

Re:Dude, me too.

[scottennis]

LOL

Right again. I fall too easily into the trap of generalization.

Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow really creeped me out with the use of the young boys, particularly the Bean as a 2 year old wandering the streets.

The only other Card books I read after those was the Shadow of the Hegemon(?) and then a few of those books where he just ripped off the story from the Book of Mormon.

Oh, and I did read the one he wrote about Christopher Columbus, which I thoroughly enjoyed.

I still think we would continue to disagree about what an inappropriate adult situation would be, but you've made your point. I will publicly withdraw my suggestion that Card's books make him suspect as a pederast!

Nice chat.

Re:Dude, me too.

[Moofie]

I try to cultivate the habit of not over-generalizing. Sometimes I do a good job, sometimes I don't. Discussions on /. are often a good place to practice. : )

Go in peace! Think hard! Sound reasoning does not take short cuts!

Re:Dude, me too.

[jandrese]

The "Good Guys" are the ones that follow the chain of command (unless their commander is some government figure) though. Good soldiers are the bulk of the good guys in the series. While this isn't a surprise in a military novel, one thing you almost never see is one of the good guys (except the main character) questioning the chain of command at all.

Umm... no

[Infonaut]

He's saying things like this:

The dark secret of homosexual society - the one that dares not speak its name - is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

Re:In general we agree, but this gets to his work

[Banishedwun]

Totally with what you said, but you make one of my points for me. Criticizing the work is much different than labelling the artist an "animal".

Though OSC has addressed the Hitler issue numerous times regarding Ender, I think you have a valid point. I look at it this way, if I never read about OSC's world view then I can still enjoy his work and get out of it what I read into it. I assume the same thing goes for L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi, but I've honestly never read any of his work because I read about scientology first. That's not to say that I wouldn't read his work though, just that I'd be biased against it.

My main objection was to the labelling of OSC as an "animal". I tend to reserve that word for people who deserve it, as in my previous OJ Simpson reference.

spEnder's Game

[digitaldc]

I wholly support this way of paying for a subscription, $2.50 is not bad at all.

PS the book 'Ender's Game' by Orson Scott Card is excellent, I recommend it to anyone.

LINK: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812 550706/103-3928436-9214253?v=glance

2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[j4ck50n]

Regardless of literary (non) accomplishments - this guy is a raging bigot of many shades.

So, as long as I churn out second rate overblown sci-fi and inane social commentary - I am free to bash, discredit and spread hate and religious intolerance?

The man is a racist homophobic bigot who deserves scorn and scrutiny, not praise.

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[LadyVirharper]

Regardless of literary (non) accomplishments

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.)

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[coyote_oww]

So, as long as I churn out second rate overblown sci-fi and inane social commentary - I am free to bash, discredit and spread hate and religious intolerance?

Freedom of speech means you don't even have to churn out second rate overblown sci-fi to have this right. "Bash, discredit, and spread hate" is your spin on what he is doing, others have other opinions.

Of course, on Slashdot, your opinion is the only Approved opinion, and all others should be mercilessly suppressed. Oh, well, unless they also produce some decent fiction, then maybe we'll consider tolerating it...

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[TouchyFeely]

No.. as long as you are American citizen you are free to have your own opinion about whatever you want. Even science fiction writers. Sorry, but you just have to accept the fact that not everyone is willing to meekly fall in line with the Left's ideologies out of fear. But I guess if those opinions dont fall in line with the Left's version of "acceptable PC thought" then you must be a "racist homophobic bigot". You Lefties throw those words around so frequently against anyone you disagree with that they no longer have any relevance or meaning. I thought the Left was all about freedom of thought and expression?

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[RexRhino]

Of course, don't give a single example so I can decide for myself, just throw out wild acussations.

After all, there is no need for one to make personal judgements. Anyone who doesn't take your word for things is obviously a hate criminal who needs to be sent to the gulags!

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[TufelKinder]

The man is a racist homophobic bigot...

Have you read his Memory of Earth series...? I thought
he treated homosexual characters well -- in fact, I was
surprised to even see them mentioned.

Re:2 OSC stories in as many weeks?

[Moofie]

"I am free to bash, discredit and spread hate and religious intolerance?"

You don't even have to write books. You are free to speak your mind, period. That's a feature, not a bug.

Alternatives

[Heddahenrik]

If you just want to read/look at scifi stories and art, Elfwood http://www.elfwood.com/ is much easier to access, and it's free. And at the spin-off sites like Elftown http://www.elftown.com/ and Writersco http://www.writersco.com/ you can have a much more intime conversations with or between the writers and artists. But there are also some pretty bad amateurs there, but many see that as a feature, not a bug.

Re:Alternatives

[grammar fascist]

But there are also some pretty bad amateurs there, but many see that as a feature, not a bug.

It's a feature if you, yourself, know how to spot the amateurs, and can recognize what it is that makes it amateur. If you can't, you might get infected, thinking that what you've seen is good writing. :D

Thanks for the links - I'm going to check them out now.

Re:Alternatives

[Reziac]

[laughing] I know what you mean. When I find myself sounding like some author who I *know* isn't very good, I go read some Cherryh. Knocks the verbiage right outta me. :)

Re:Alternatives

[PaulyDragon]

I can honestly say that were it not for Elftown, I'd most likely not be doing any kind of artwork, and I quite possibly would not have found the motivation to finish my 595-page first novel, and start my second novel (illustrating them here and there). I've met far more people there, than in real life, who are interested in many of the same things I am.

On Elftown, you can be shamelessly nerdy and justify the nerdiness by producing artwork and writing you might have never done otherwise, without the motivation of your fellow artists and writers :)

Elftown is constantly developing, and can only be as good as the people who are on there. Artists, writers, geeks ---come on down, and help collectively raise the IQ to unparalleled new heights. And you don't have to suffer through political/religious drama, if you don't want to ;-)

By the way, I am user #11046/[paul doyle] (my real name) on Elftown. I'm fairly well known there.

See you there, and stop by my ET house and say hi! :)

The man knows quality.

[LadyVirharper]

I don't agree with OSC's politics either, but he's a very talented writer, and he also knows how to spot good writing (and other forms of art too). Like someone else said, everyone's flawed, and if you let it limit the artists you patronize, you'll be missing out on a lot of good things.

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".

Re:The man knows quality.

[OSUJoe]

"Like someone else said, everyone's flawed, and if you let it limit the artists you patronize, you'll be missing out on a lot of good things."

For me, the issue is giving that artist money. What causes might he use that money to support? For someone who's as outspokenly conservative in important areas as Card is, I am loathe to take the chance that he'll just use it for good things.

Re:The man knows quality.

[Reziac]

Agreed re Card's HowTo books -- in fact, I think they're better than his fiction (which often violates his own HowTo advice, in ways that harm the story). And even if a writer already knows this material, it doesn't hurt to be reminded. Like yourself, I'd already taught myself "all that stuff", but even so it was useful to see it laid out in so many words.

so...

[HBI]

If they went out to the titty bar in assless chaps you'd be okay with them?

Re:In general we agree, but this gets to his work

[The Wooden Badger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you say that your reading of the novel is affected by critics claims that he has denied? The 7.1 outline point brings up another great critique that Ender's Game was actually written by a committee of Mormons to warm people up to forgiving. That just sounds like conspiracy theory drivel to me. I can't think of a good reason to go to someone who doesn't like an author to figure out what the original meaning was.

On the topic of the Ender/Hitler thing, all we can do is acknowledge that one side says yes and the other side says no. I have to go with the author on this one. I don't know why he would try to hide the Hitler comparisons seeing how Ender is quite detestable in man ways. The case is shaky when you see how much Ender is played and used to commit genocide, where Hitler is anything but a pawn.

#iorc.troLltalk.com

[Anonymous Coward]

thi8gs I still project somewhere 3alance is struck, Of events today,

cool! but can i get it in print?!

[radarsat1]

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...

Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!

[Scrameustache]

Yes, because Bush personally could have done a whole lot, such as

Such as giving the head of FEMA job to a qualified person instead of treating it as gift to hand over to his incompetant buddy.

But no, let's not blame the result of nepotism and incompetance on the guilty... obviously, no one could have anticipated that the levees would break, right? So it would have been the same mess no matter who had been in charge?

Man, seriously, when someone's incompetance costs people their lives, it MIGHT be time to stop thinking that it's OK to be leave the incompetant in charge. Just a thought.

Re:Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!

[Anonymous Coward]

People started loosing their lives to his incompetence in 2003 and it didn't change anything. If we don't care about our service men's and women's lives why do you thnk we will care about a lot of poor black people's?

Re:Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!

[Scrameustache]

Anyone care to explain how that was, in any way, flamebait?

Re:Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't, dude. You got shafted. I've noticed recently that there is a LOT of negative modding going on, for no apparent reason other than someone just doesn't like what is being said, no matter how rationally and calmly the post was written.

And now, make sure you browse at -1 so you can read THIS comment after the bitter and angry mods get their claws on it...

You're safe with L. Ron, anyway

[ianscot]

I look at it this way, if I never read about OSC's world view then I can still enjoy his work and get out of it what I read into it. I assume the same thing goes for L. Ron Hubbard's sci-fi, but I've honestly never read any of his work because I read about scientology first. Those Hubbard books are awful and hackneyed. They wouldn't be in print if not for the Dianetics connection.

My brother bought a few of L Ron's together as remainder hardcovers, and Steve's pretty bread and butter as a Sci Fi fan. Even for someone who just wants an okay space opera sort of deal, he said they were terrible. Leafing through one of them I'd agree. Embarrassingly bad writing.

Umm....

[manonthemoon]

Since religion is generally viewed as a big commitment/part of life, is writing a letter all that hard?

Re:Umm....

[Oligonicella]

Perhaps then you could elucidate the rational reasons that anyone would have to write a letter (e-mail not accepted) in order to leave any given church and not be harassed by said church's hit-men? I do believe that "big commitment/part of life" is a personal thing, is it not? Should not then the choice to leave or drop said commitment, regardless of size, be a personal thing as well? I await your answer.

Hey!

[MightyMartian]

I actually have something to submit, but the submission form just says "Coming soon". How exactly do they propose to keep an SF magazine going without submissions?

Current Best Souce of Science ficiton

[DrRobert]

scifiction.com is currently the highest paying market for science fiction period. It is edited by Ellen Datlow (from Omni) and the combination of the best editor and the best pay means it has in general the best ficiton.

Oh, bloody please

[Moraelin]

Disclaimer: I'm an adept of "do whatever the fuck you please, as long as it's in the privacy of your home, and between consenting adults". I'm not opposed to your being gay, or whatever else you want to be. This time however, I'll basically also add "but fucking _keep_ it to the privacy of your own home, and leave the rest of us out of it already, because I'm already tired of the 'waah, you're a nazi if you don't support us' guilt-tripping."

So where should I start? He's a "rightwing religious fanatic"? Well, how about you support that claim? Because in that article you linked to, I've seen him actually argue his point of view without needing to base it on "God said it's wrong". So how the heck is it religious fanatism? He bases his argument on some things that are technically true, too. Things like:

1. That it's a redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something it never meant before. It's true. Marriage always meant something involving a man and a woman. Anything else is an extension of the meaning. Now you may argue that it's a logical extension, and that it doesn't do anyone any harm, and we can even aggree on that. But an extension it is.

2. That you did have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including, yes, the right to a heterosexual marriage. It may not be the kind of right you wanted, but technically you had the same rights. (Same as technically if homosexual marriage is allowed, heterosexuals have that right too. They might not want to exert that right, but they have it.) What you wanted was a _new_ right, that noone else had. Again, it may be a logical one, or one that doesn't harm anyone, and we can even aggree there, but it _is_ a new one.

3. Passing laws and granting new rights is a privilege of congress, not of a judge legislating from the bench. The courts of law are the branch that should apply the existing laws, not the ones that make new ones as they see fit. Separation of powers in the state is there for a reason, and let's keep it that way.

So how about you address those, if you really wish to discuss that, instead of reaching for the canned "insane rightwing religious fanatic" ad-hominem? (And if not, why did you bring it up?)

Because it seems to me like all three are technically right. Again, I'm not opposed to your getting that right. Makes sense to me. But the bullshit verbal fallacies (i.e., a whole argument based on redefining what a word means), ad-hominems, and endless guilt-tripping attempts based on those verbal falkacies, _are_ starting to get my goat. If you want to make your case, make it logically already, and not by fallacies. Verbal, ad-hominem, guilt by association (e.g., don't read his books because he's one of the homophobes), or otherwise. Or in other words, ffs, be honest for a start: if you want a new right, say just that, don't pretend someone was denying you something everyone else had.

And judging from the page you linked to, basically that's the same thing that Orson Scott Card was having a problem with too: that verbal fallacy involved. Hence the Humpty Dumpty reference. Can't even say I blame him for getting annoyed at hearing the same fallacy over and over again.

And you know what? It might even make your cause a lot of good to be honest for a change, and make a logical case instead of the whole "waah, I'm a victim" guilt trip. A lot of us couldn't care less what you do in your home. Sure, marry another guy, if that makes you happy. But if you act like an attention-whore, attention you'll get. And sometimes of the annoyed kind. If you scream the same fallacy (i.e., lie) again at people often enough, you've just insulted their intelligence and you've just lost their sympathy. Yes, the average human might be an idiot, but if you keep treating him like one and make your whole argument based on word-plays, he'll catch on to it. Just something to consider.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[pilkul]

Actually, the most outrageous passage in that essay, which you seem to have missed, is this:

The dark secret of homosexual society - the one that dares not speak its name - is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.

Someone with this belief is pretty much the definition of a homophobe. It seems that Card believes being homosexually raped somehow involuntarily changes your sexual orientation, or begins some kind of drug-like addiction one is powerless to escape. Or perhaps he means that homosexuals are some kind of evil cabal that somehow keeps people trapped in their community. Whatever it is, this passage reveals Card's view of homosexuality to be completely detached from reality.

The rest of the article, as you point out, is a bunch of strictly speaking correct but irrelevant technicalities. Less objectionable I suppose, but the only reason one would want to raise them in the first place is because one is a homophobe --- it's similar to Neo-nazis raising minor technical quibbles about the Holocaust, without necessarily explicitly revealing their racist agenda.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[indifferent children]

1. That it's a redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something it never meant before. It's true. Marriage always meant something involving a man and a woman. Anything else is an extension of the meaning.

No. In many places, including the territory of Utah, polygamy has been practiced, so it was not between a man and a woman.

2. That you did have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including, yes, the right to a heterosexual marriage.

Would you say that blacks had the same right in 1940's Alabama: they could park their white butt in the front of the bus. What's that? You don't have a white butt? Too bad.

3. Passing laws and granting new rights is a privilege of congress, not of a judge legislating from the bench.

No. If a judge finds that the laws are on conflict with the US Constitution (federal courts and state courts) or the state Constitution (state courts), then the judges are obligated to rule that the discriminatory law is not valid. This is what happened in Massachussets.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[Moraelin]

"Someone with this belief is pretty much the definition of a homophobe."

Well, yes, but from there to "insane rightwing religious fanatic" there's a bit of a difference. Someone can be one without being either religious or right wing.

"The rest of the article, as you point out, is a bunch of strictly speaking correct but irrelevant technicalities. Less objectionable I suppose, but the only reason one would want to raise them in the first place is because one is a homophobe --- it's similar to Neo-nazis raising minor technical quibbles about the Holocaust, without necessarily explicitly revealing their racist agenda."

Well, yes, but then I'd assume that if his agenda is that of an "insane rightwing religious fanatic", there would be some better articles to illustrate that, then one which is mainly about a real verbal fallacy, and has a total of one phrase or two debatably relevant to homophobia (or then again could be explained by Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity), but none even remotely relevant to being either overly religious or right wing. To take your comparison with the Neo-nazis, I'd say that if you want to denounce someone as a Neo-nazi, it would make more sense to link to an article where they _do_ reveal their racist agenda, than one where they merely discuss some irrelevant technicalities (e.g., how many IBM machines the Nazis bought)... and are even right about those technicalities.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[frankie]

_keep_ it to the privacy of your own home, and leave the rest of us out of it

Just wondering, have you or anyone in your immediate family ever:

• romantically held hands or kissed in public?
• chatted with your co-workers about your significant other?
• visited a spouse, step-parent, or step-child in the hospital?
• received a financial or legal benefit based on marital status?
• etc, etc, etc?

My wife & I have done all of these things, and I don't keep that fact in the privacy of my home. Why should other responsible US citizens be restricted in ways that I am not?

Personally, I think the loud gay rights advocates have done themselves (and America as a whole) a huge disservice by being so stubborn about "the M word". They would have been so much better served taking quiet the baby steps to civil union. In many ways, I blame them for inflicting the second term of the second coming on us, by inciting huge religion-inspired backlash from folks like Orson Scott Card.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[cpt kangarooski]

1. That it's a redefinition of the word "marriage" to mean something it never meant before. It's true. Marriage always meant something involving a man and a woman. Anything else is an extension of the meaning. Now you may argue that it's a logical extension, and that it doesn't do anyone any harm, and we can even aggree on that. But an extension it is.

And marriage also always meant between the same race, of proper social standing or caste, between the same religion, etc., until it changed. There is no platonic ideal of marriage, no fixed definition.

Or do you think that if aliens landed today, that no one could marry them simply because all marriages in the past were human-only? (Certainly no one is up in arms about numerous human-nonhuman marriages in popular fiction, so I guess tradition doesn't really count for much)

Marriage is ultimately a certain form of union between people. That doesn't tell us anything about the races, prior marital status, religions, social positions, genders, consanguity or anything else about the people.

We might have a good reason for imposing some limits with regards to some of these attributes, but we can't just do so arbitrarily.

2. That you did have the exact same rights as heterosexual people, including, yes, the right to a heterosexual marriage. It may not be the kind of right you wanted, but technically you had the same rights. (Same as technically if homosexual marriage is allowed, heterosexuals have that right too. They might not want to exert that right, but they have it.) What you wanted was a _new_ right, that noone else had. Again, it may be a logical one, or one that doesn't harm anyone, and we can even aggree there, but it _is_ a new one.

This an old argument, and an incorrect one. In the 60's, segregationist states used it to argue that while interracial marriages were illegal, both blacks and whites had the equal right to marry intraracially. This was nevertheless unconstitutional, because equal application of the law does not mean that it is not discriminatory.

3. Passing laws and granting new rights is a privilege of congress, not of a judge legislating from the bench. The courts of law are the branch that should apply the existing laws, not the ones that make new ones as they see fit. Separation of powers in the state is there for a reason, and let's keep it that way.

Also wrong.

First, in the United States, and most other countries related to England, the courts do have the right to make law. Judicially created law is what the common law is. The courts can create it and alter it as they see fit. The common law includes the majority of contract, property, and tort law. This isn't really relevant in this context, but you're wrong about how the seperation of powers actually works.

Second, the Due Process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit federal or state governments from denying any right of liberty without due process. Such due process must be both procedural (i.e. the denial must have come about through the proper means) and substantive (i.e. in order for there to be a denial, the reason for the denial must be commensurate with the right at stake). There are similar provisions in state constitutions.

The courts have recognized that there is a fundamental right to marry. Therefore, in order for this to be denied, there must be a sufficiently important reason for doing so. Maintaining segregation, for example, was not a sufficiently good enough reason for denying interracial marriage, resulting in that ban being unconstitutional. So far, no one has been able to come up with a sufficiently good enough reason for maintaining the ban on same-sex marriage.

Thus, no new right has been judicially created. Rather, a legislative denial of that right has been overturned. And this is proper, since civil rights, such as the right to marry, are meant to be protected against the whims of the majority. Our liberties are not subject to vote.

Third, what does Congr

Re:Oh, bloody please

[Doc Ruby]

You really like the propaganda. You also like the repressed "you can do what you want, but don't let anyone know". How do gay people feel about seeing heterosexuals get sexy all over the place? Most probably don't care - which is how we feel about homosexuals doing the same when they, and we, are free. I can dig up examples of homosexual marriage - even among saints (like the story of the Roman soldiers at Jesus' crucifixion). But why? Who cares? We "redefined" the term "man" to include women and nonwhites, when we clarified that what we mean by "man" includes those people, too. Even though legally and traditionally, they had been excluded from voting etc, just like gays from marriage.

Judges only "legislate from the bench" in the terms of rightwingers taking over the government. While statistics show that Republican appointed (and registered, and self-identified) judges are more likely than others to overturn Congressional acts. You're arguing about "definition of marriage", when it is precisely the judicial responsibility to define terms when interpreting laws. This whole exercise by Card is part of orchestrated bigotry being enshrined in US law, along with religious preferences - even extending to Bush's current "religiously qualified" nominee to the Supreme Court. You really need to look more closely at your country. Because eventually these fascists get everyone - and you yourself are somewhere down the list.

I didn't say anything about someone being a nazi if they don't support gay marriage, as you claim. I said that Card was unreadable (by me), and an insane rightwing fanatic, because he is. There's plenty of other evidence that Card is, in fact, a Nazi. Not because of who he doesn't support, but because of who he does support, and who he attacks. Get a clue, or your relative acceptance of people different from you (as long as you don't know about it?) won't be an option any longer.

Re:Oh, bloody please

[Moraelin]

" You really like the propaganda."

No, I really dislike propaganda, especially the kind based on verbal fallacies. That was the whole point.

"You also like the repressed "you can do what you want, but don't let anyone know"."

I'm not saying "don't let anyone know", I'm saying "you can stop shoving it in my face". Which is slightly different. When I read about a SF magazine, for example, I'm really _not_ looking for "don't read his books because he's a homophobe" any more than I'd be looking for "don't read his books, his gay". Which is to say, not at all. You can start leaving me out of it, that's all.

"How do gay people feel about seeing heterosexuals get sexy all over the place?"

Hell if I know. I'm taking a wild guess that if someone started doing a whole "look at me, I'm hetero!" attention-whoring act, they'd find him just as annoying. Heck, I'm hetero and I would.

"But why? Who cares?"

Precisely.

"We "redefined" the term "man" to include women and nonwhites, when we clarified that what we mean by "man" includes those people, too. Even though legally and traditionally, they had been excluded from voting etc, just like gays from marriage."

Yes, but again, it's been something that took some voting and was an act of Congress, not a judge deciding to redefine a word. Because, again, for whatever other sins Card may have, that's what he was ticked about in the article you linked to.

"You really need to look more closely at your country. Because eventually these fascists get everyone - and you yourself are somewhere down the list."

We already had the real deal. Guess it's one reason to not be keen on one-man decisions that regulate a whole country. There's a parliament, and here it's actually doing a remarkably good job of, well, at least pretending to represent the people, let them decide these things.

"There's plenty of other evidence that Card is, in fact, a Nazi. Not because of who he doesn't support, but because of who he does support, and who he attacks."

So post a link to those, if you want to make a point. Linking to the Humpty Dumpty article where (even if strictly technically) he does have a point, isn't really getting that message across.

"Get a clue, or your relative acceptance of people different from you (as long as you don't know about it?) won't be an option any longer."

I have co-workers who are openly gay, and have worked pretty closely with a client's representative who was a lesbian, so it's not about "as long as you don't know about it." But that doesn't mean they had to squeeze that into every conversation.

There's a difference between knowing about it and getting a "waah, I'm persecuted! Bad people are against me!" emo act every turn. That goes for both homo- and hetero-sexuals. "Waah, I'm persecuted! I'm a Nice Guy (TM) and women avoid me!" acts from hetero-sexuals are just as annoying if you're getting them all the time. There's a time and place for sobbing on someone's shoulder, and there's a time and place for discussing one's sexuality (or in the Nice Guy case, lack thereof), but then there's also a time and place for giving it a rest and sticking to other topics at hand.

We Mormons....

[Anonymous Coward]

We Mormons are not in the church for a social club, we believe in it so our actions show it. If someone you cared about was having a crisis of some kind, would you not care enough to try and help them, or would you just let them sink or swim on their own?

The individuals involved might have been clumsy about it, but their hearts were in the right place and you could at least take their attempts to reach out to you as the sign of love it was intended as.

And if anyone is serious about getting their name taken off the membership rolls, is writing a letter asking for it really such an onerous task?

As for those who give non-members a cold shoulder, we have been told not to behave that way, and outside of Utah I doubt you would find many Mormons who are like that.

Pot? Kettle? Black?

[MavenW]

If there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's intolerance!
I'm goint to bash, discredit, and spread hate and personal intolerance.
And I am a bigot bigot who definitely deserves scorn and scrutiny, not praise.

I don't care what they do to me after I'm dead

[wiredog]

as long as they leave me alone while I'm alive.

spelling error on page 1 of story

[Anonymous Coward]

I glanced at the first page (the free preview) of "Eviction Notice", since the submitter raved about how good it was.

I noticed "Dukes of Hazzard" was misspelled as "Dukes of Hazard". That's about as good a sign of quality as newspapers which have typos in their headlines.

(Posting anonymously since I'm not terribly proud of the fact that I knew off the top of my head that Hazzard has two z's. But hey, it's better than ranting about OSC's political views or about Paypal.)

Excuse me?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole idea of having to write a letter to an organization in order to get them to leave you alone is offensive and creepy. Whether it's easy or not to write a letter is entirely beside the point. If Mormons don't want to be thought of as creepy cult members who won't leave their former members alone, then perhaps they ought to rethink some of their policies.

As for this being the work of a few isolated individuals, there is actually a support group for former Mormons:

http://www.exmormon.org/

They have an archive of many stories by ex-Mormons who have experienced a similar kick in the butt on their way out. You know you have a quality religion, when former members band together and form support groups.

quality stories!

[mildness]

Card, the editor-in-chief, has stayed true to his ideals: quality stories...

So he won't actually be submitting stories himself then? (:-{p}

BillyBob

OSC hates democracy, go read "Songmaster".

[gomel]

OSC hates the democratic process. He glorifes ruthlessness, hierarchic controls and mindless unity. It's not simply the Ender trilogy, which I base this on.

1. Here is one of his columns: Condoleezza's Confirmation . Go read it.

Democracy cannot exist without dissent. It's a trademark of authoritarian and totalitarian systems that they demand that there never be any dissent. Card DEMANDS that the opposition must never show any disagreement with the current government, because the enemies COULD interpret this as a lack of unity and determination. (exactly how many Jihadis were watching the confirmation hearings, heh?) Apparently OSC is a strong believer in the 'Triumph of the Will'.

2. Did you read Songmaster, a novel which actually predates Ender's Game?

In this novel OSC shows a universe in which all inhabited planets are incorporated in one Empire. Through the words and actions of the characters he argues that the Emperor needs to be the most ruthless person in the world, or the empire fall into anarchy and infighting. His successor must be even more ruthless and a non-violent change of leadership is not possible - he has to kill the predecessor to show off his ruthlessness.

Maybe Ender's game isn't a glorification of Hitler, but Songmaster definitely is.

p.s I read the first homecoming book. Nothing about democracy there.

Disagreement != Fear

[Fished]

I greatly resent the use of the word "homophobia" to describe anyone who disagrees with any element of the "gay agenda." I don't need to have an irrational fear of homosexuality (what the word "homophobia" used to mean) to feel that a lot of the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality is at best misleading and at worst out-right false. I don't need to be afraid to feel that marriage is an institution that really only makes sense between a man and a woman.

For people who spend an awful lot of time demanding that their point of view be heard, the gay community seems awfully ready to use any means possible, including prejudicial and inflammatory rhetoric, to make sure that others points of view are silenced or at least ignored.

Re:Disagreement != Fear

[pomo monster]

OK, how's "anti-gay" sound instead? It's probably more accurate a term, given that you oppose granting gay couples the same rights enjoyed by straight couples.

oh puh-LEEZE

[thegameiam]

I read column number (1) when it came out. He's giving the Democratic Senators grief for a relatively controversial, partisan move on their part. Nu? What's the problem here? There's a time and place for dissent, and a time and place to suck it up.

Before the election = great time for dissent. Maybe people change their minds and pick an administration which fits new views.

After the election = not as great a time for dissent. Acting like "I'm taking my ball and going home" or "I'm going to keep arguing the same things, even though the people have spoken" is not polite, not helpful, and not smart.

Honestly, it really IS the President's perogative to pick the SoS. How many Republicans voted against Madeline Allbright?

with regard to Riefenstahl, I think that more of that exists on the left than on the right nowadays: look at Michael Moore as example #1.

Nope, I didn't read Songmaster - it didn't look very good to me.
I don't know where this meme of Card == Hitler comes from, but if anything, he's more influenced by Ayn Rand, in that his protagonists are always individuals who are outside the power structure. It's when they get inside the power structure that they become corrupt. Again, that's what I was saying about his views: it's not Democracy he has issues with, it's organized power in general. It'd be hard to read "Earthborn" and not see his glorification of those outside of the hierarchy.

-David

Orson Scott Card is a swine...

[wintermute42]

Card is notorious (or at least should be) for his anti-gay rants and his support for a view of morality that closely mirrors that of the Christian Right. You can see echos of his strange world view in his books.

Since /. tends more toward libertarianism if it tends toward anything, why contantly suck up to card? What's next, notices about the latest novels by Newt Gingrich?

Any way, you can read who ever you want. But for me it's hard to forget who Card is and what kind of politics he promotes.

Re:Orson Scott Card is a swine...

[Anonymous Coward]

How close minded of you.

Reminds me of a great old magazine Aboriginal

[ibvaughn]

I used to get a monthly copy of Aboriginal sent to me back in 86-88. Similar format. Great stories! Glad to see Orson bring back something like it!!

How can he be a homophoebe?

[Anonymous Coward]

That guy writes too many stories about capable young men for my taste. After the fourth or fifth book where "young boy, lithesome but in a spot of trouble, overcomes great obstacles..." it gets, well, a little off-putting. Like that neighbor who has to tell you ALL THE TIME how beautiful your kids are. Seriously- am I the only person who notices this? Books of his with this theme:

• Ender's Game (and sequels)
• Lost Boys
• Hart's Hope
• Seventh Son (and at least one of the sequels, the exact title escapes me)
• Wyrms
• Songmaster (originally a short story "Mikal's Songbird"

Those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Somehow that line from Shakespeare comes to mind. You know, the one about ladies and how one of them is protesting overmuch and all? Yeah, that's the one.

What if he were a misogynist?

[surelyserious]

I don't agree with OSC's politics either, but he's a very talented writer, and he also knows how to spot good writing

Scratch that. This guy gives both the Morman religion and science-fiction a black-eye. (Nice trick.) Creepy!

Human drug factories

[Demolition]

One in particular had aliens coming to Earth and transforming human bodies into narcotics factories (and doing the person in, in the process).

That sounds somewhat like "I Come In Peace", starring Dolph Lundgren. It deals with an alien that sucks the endorphins out of heroin addicts' brains to produce an addictive "space drug". A silly movie, but worth a look if you have a couple of hours to waste. :-)

Please Yourself

[Doc Ruby]

No one is shoving homosexuality in your face - unless you're going in for that particular kink without mentioning it. It's not really a strong argument to mention, but if you were going in for that, it would affect the interpretation of your comments about homophobia. It's not strong, because the two subjects are directly connected; separated only by your public/private boundary. But you really mean that you find homosexuality offensive, even if only slightly, when you can't ignore it. You also seem to be offended in the same way by heterosexuals acting less than "manly". The consistency says things about your own sexuality that I think you're ignoring. But now I've wandered pretty far afield. I will point out, though, that I did post the link to the other, much more serious discussion of Card's fascist personality - which you also conveniently ignored.

On topic, though, I'll point out that once I know about those attributes of your mind outside your writing, it affects my perception of it. Just like I said about Card: once I found out he was an asshole, I couldn't read his books without thinking of those aspects of him, and they turned me off. Reading is a trust between reader and writer, with which we perform the magic of projection into the created scenes, leaving the safety of our bodies and the familiar physical world behind. I posted that I couldn't read about it anymore. Once I'd got his insanity "in my face", I couldn't appreciate his writing without being reminded of his offensive attitude, spoiling the reading. I didn't say he should't write, or even that others shouldn't read him. And I posted a link, which anyone could ignore if they didn't want that to happen to them. And many who replied to my post mentioned they appreciated the insight. From there, it's up to them.

As far as our disagreement on "judicial restraint", it takes more than one judge to affect law. Every time a suit is brought before a judge, the lawyers have the chance to change the precedent with a better argument, the judge has the chance with a better insight. That's part of our democracy, which buffers the "mob rule" that has denied rights to so many Americans in the past, who we "restored" through law or judicial action, or even (more rarely) independent presidential intervention. To end segregation (the law of the land) it took more than an amendment, more than striking down "Jim Crow" and other laws. In many places in the US, blacks couldn't actually vote for more than a century after the Constitution protected that right. Every judge who defended that right, or property rights, or personal safety, was an "activist", finding the protections in the law that defended those people. Despite generations of activist judges, lawyers and juries who denied those rights under contrived legal cover. Desegregation of schools, and thereby all of society, was the law, despite previous laws, but not in effect until the president sent in National Guard, even forcing aside a governor physically obstructing a school door. Civil rights transcend your personal aversions and ideological artifacts of flawed representation that does not protect those rights. And even just a few years or generations later, the free exercise of those rights are taken for granted nearly universally (except by diehard bigots) - abandoning them is at least as repugnant as was the old, discredited bigotry.

But along the way, people who say they accept others as equals must do more than just say so. Acceptance is one of the most transformational processes we know. It often takes activists - who risk their careers, even their lives, for justice. Those are the kinds of people we want to be judges: who defend justice above the law, within the law, changing the law, or at least its interpretation consistent with liberty. That's their job in helping manage a dynamic, ever-evolving society of people governing ourselves.

"The Church"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you just outted yourself. Nobody calls the Mormon church "the Church" except Mormons. Now why would a Mormon pose as a non-member in order to promote their members as "honestly good people"?

Heh. You amuse me

[Moraelin]

Dude, I'm a veteran of many flame wars, starting with FidoNET, long before the Internet was anything else than an academic experiment. I've seen and written worse trolls than what you do there. But enough to know a lame troll when I see one.

And yes, that's you. The whole "let's put words in your mouth, and then pretend to be a shrink and discover repressed himosexual/oedipus/inferiority/etc complexes" spiel is just that: a lamer's trolling weapon. I've seen and wrote worse than that, so, honestly, I'm just amused at this point.

And yes, that's another one of the fallacies that the whole gay propaganda is built upon. "See, if you don't support us, you're secretly gay too and affraid to admit it." I'll call bullshit on that. It's just as bullshit as Card's "if you're gay, you're a victim secretly yearning to become hetero". It's just a case of begging the question, or in other words a circular-referencing premise pulled out of the ass. Other than as a means to troll those you extrapolate about, it holds as much water as a sieve.

But if you really want to play shrink, how about you address what was wrote there, instead of inventing strawmen you're comfortable with. Noone said anything about finding homosexuality itself offensive. I talked explicitly about attention-whoring and whole arguments built on fallacies (e.g., verbal fallacies, ad hominem, guilt by association and appeals to spite), and the whole off-topic trolling a topic that had nothing to do with either homosexuality or homophobia to start with.

See some highlighted words in the above paragraph? Those are the real keywords. Not sexuality. I don't care if it's about sexuality, vi-vs-emacs, Nintendo/Sony/MS fanboyism, or Linux/Amiga/BSD persecution syndrome. You can just quit the trolling, attention-whoring and fallacies. That's all. That's what it's all about.

In a nutshell, it's _not_ "don't be gay", it's simply "fucking grow up already". That's all.

But I have no doubt that you'll dodge the topic again, and turn it all into the same persecution complex you're comfortable with. "Waah, the bad man is secretly finding us offensive after all!" It's times like these that I wonder where did evolution go wrong.

Re:Heh. You amuse me

[Doc Ruby]

You're going to have to pay someone more than you're paying me to help you figure out why you can deal with homosexuality only when you don't see it. You're obviously too far gone for any post of mine to help you get some insight into why you become so defensive and hostile when I confront your denial. Why you start confessing your trollery to me, then start projecting it onto me. Have fun with your major malfunction all by yourself - I don't want to be exposed to it, but I'm not going to pretend that I accept it. I just accept that it's not my problem.

Card is an apologist for tyranny

[gomel]

Let me first clarify one thing, I do not disparage OSC because his politics are right-wing (although he calls himself a moderate Democrat). My criticism goes beyond that. I would criticize a left-wing columnist in the same manner if one ever demanded that the opposition of the government MUST vote as the government wishes.

Card is a follower of authoritarianism. This can be clearly read from this column. This is not simply a result of a post-9/11 change in thinking, which would be understandable, but a life-long tendency. As I said, Card has written a book about a future universe which HAS to be ruled by a tyrant, or there will be chaos and anarchy.

In his books he is not writing that ruthless tyranny is either good or bad. What he is doing is much worse, he is writing that TYRANNY IS NECESSARY.

If you need a better example to understand this, OSC spend his life writing an apology for people like Saddam Hussain (and yes, even Hitler). Saddam could argue that gassing the Kurds, butchering the Shia uprising, this all was necessary to return Iraq to proper order under his leadership.

-- -- --
Now, what you have written to me as a response goes in the same line of thought. You are arguing, that when the executive power (the president) makes a decision, the Senate must not question it. There are several reasons why this approach is wrong and leads straight to despotism.

1. The senators had the right to go on record, that they believed that Rice is the wrong candidate. Voting against her was a way of showing that. When they voted they knew that she would be confirmed anyway.

2. The process is called 'confirmation hearings' for a reason. If it was the President's sole perogative, there would be no need for them. The president's less important decisions do not need a confirmation.

3. To use your words, "the people have [NOT] spoken". Nobody elected C.Rice, she got appointed by the President. GWB got elected, but it does not follow that it is the will of the people that Rice shall be the secretary of state. A more recent example is the nomination of Miers to the Supreme Court. Even GWB's hardcore electorate is against it, which shows that he does not represent even their will.

4. All authoritarians have a deep disregard for parliaments, because they are an obstacle for their unchecked power. Throughout history they have argued, that they, a single person, are the true voice of the will of the people, and the rotten, corrupt parliaments are not.

This is a monstrous fallacy. It should be obvious to anyone that a larger elected body is closer to the electorate than a smaller one. The perfect case is the Athenian or Swiss form of direct democracy. The rule of a single person is on the opposite side of the scale. An elected government without a pluralistic parliament is not a democracy. It is an elected tyranny.
-- -- --
As regards Riefenstahl, there are no analogies to Moore. She was a producer of propaganda FOR the government, M.Moore is producing propaganda AGAINST it. (I'd agree that he is a propagandist. I observed that Moore does not give people a fair chance of explaining themselves in the 'shocumentaries'.)

And it was not my goal to say that Card is like Riefenstahl. I meant that Card believes that military victories are the result of the stronger will, not the better strategy. In Card's mind, the US can only win in Iraq by being more stubborn than the insurgents, not smarter.

Re:Card is an apologist for tyranny

[thegameiam]

You didn't begin to answer my points. OSC may think that tyranny is inevitable, but that is an opinion which some historians share.

Unless you're talking about his religion (which would be rude), Card has nothing to do with authoritarianism - if anything, he seems to prefer very limited government in most cases (with exceptions because nobody is consistent in all things).

All you've done is make ad hominem attacks, and read personal opinion into his work: the fact that his books portray some figures sympathetically doesn't mean that he thinks that those figures are to be emulated. As an example, the portrayal of Zdorab is quite sympathetic - even when you might expect it not to be given Card's religious views.

However, with regard to yours,

1) okay, so they think she's the wrong candidate. But why? All of the stated reasons had nothing to do with competence, and everything to do with policy, which is not the perogative of the SoS to set - the SoS reflects the policy of the President. The Senators had a problem with the President's policies, and took them out on his nominee. Inappropriate timing of protest, in my opinion.

2) Correct, although given that Michael Brown got through a Senate confirmation with no hassle, the Senate seems to be falling down on the job.

3) You misunderstand our government. The SoS does not MAKE policy, the SoS enforces and explains policy. The person who MAKES policy was elected, by a majority of the electorate, states, and people. It's reasonable that he be allowed to appoint people who will carry out his policies. The Senate is supposed to be making sure that the nominees are competant, and not cronies, etc. Notice that the complaints against Ms. Miers are directed at whether or not she is competant.

4) Irrelevant. President Bush never said that. OSC never said precisely that either - he merely said that the Senators were overstepping their bounds and authority, and (in a nutshell) being jerks.

-David

Good to hear...

[Karyyk]

To be on topic, I'm glad to see this. SciFi in its most basic environment has been sufferring of late, and it's good to see someone doing something that's a bit more traditional in its concept. It almost hearkens back to the old scifi pulps of old. I just wish I could print it out myself on low-grade paper ;) One thing I do find troubling is how the very mention of OSC seems to have the same effect on those that loathe him as a bull seeing red. They shout cries of bigot and hypocrite, when I see nothing about his character that would reveal him as such. Fault him for holding to his beliefs if you must, but the very fact that he holds to them discounts claims of hypocrisy. Being labelled as a bigot these days seems to be more of a badge of honor than it should be. It's how the masses apparently refer to you when you hold to something unpopular. If that is the new definition of a bigot, a great many of us qualify, myself included.

Re:In general we agree, but this gets to his work

[ianscot]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did you say that your reading of the novel is affected by critics claims that he has denied?

The thing is, even if OSC didn't intend it that way, once you've heard the gist of this critique -- that the books are a sort of apologia for fascism and Hitler in particular -- it's hard to avoid. Some of the details are uncanny. Given any thought to Brazil being chosen as a locale later in the series?

Ayn Rand was about as unlikely a cult leader as I can imagine, given her public persona. Behind that she was a domineering cult leader. The public protestations don't amount to much in retrospect.

The 7.1 outline point brings up another great critique that Ender's Game was actually written by a committee of Mormons to warm people up to forgiving.

Hyup, and I'm bright enough to measure claims against the work and judge for myself which ones ring true. The fact that a lot of flaky people think W. Bush is evil for various imagined conspiratorial reasons doesn't mean he's not badly wrong on ideological and moral grounds. I can make those judgments for myself, I'm not just reading from an outline.

You've got to be kidding

[thegameiam]

If you wouldn't mind, please refrain from attempting to describe my internal mental state - your descriptions are very likely to be quite wrong (and in this case are thoroughly so). Thanks.

a "permissive attitude on homosexuality" is the opposite of a "restrictive attitude on homosexuality." Those are descriptive statements, not value judgements. One set of opinions might be more palatable than the other, but they are both descriptive (think "red hair" or "blonde hair").

"Homophobia" really *IS* just a buzzword - any rational understanding of the meaning of the word does not describe anyone I know, and I know a large number of people with varied attitudes toward homosexuality (from very right-wing religious folks to the gay couple around the corner).

With regard to "Insanity" which I said was not an appropriate word to describe Card or his beliefs, here's what Mirriam Webster's Medical Dictionary has to say (from dictionary.com):

Main Entry: insanity
Pronunciation: in-'san-&t-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -ties
1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility

Source: Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Now exactly does that apply to Card, his work, or his belief systems? Remember, what I said which provoked your "You are using "sanity" in its most facile, oversimplified sense, which is not useful for any understanding of in/sanity - it's only good for vilification" response was the following sentence:

That you cannot relate to something does not make it insane. Perhaps what you mean to say is "I don't understand Card, and I think his opinions suck."

The English language is a powerful tool for communication. It is not necessary to use hyperbolic phrases to convey distaste.