Slashdot Mirror
Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy
An anonymous reader writes "A controversy has been brewing in the comic community for the past month. Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game and its many sequels, was tapped to write a story for the new Adventures of Superman comic. The controversy arose because Card has become an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, going so far as to say giving it legal recognition could mark 'the end of democracy in America,' and suggesting 'traditional' married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Many fans of the series objected, and some retailers decided they wouldn't stock the issue Card's story appears in. Now, the illustrator for Card's story, Chris Sprouse, has walked away from the project, saying he wasn't comfortable with the media surrounding the story. Because of that, Card's story is being replaced in the Adventures of Superman anthology. 'The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an "out" to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.' Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this. I enjoyed Ender's Game as a kid, and it tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things. On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction, and it's unlikely DC would let him put those views into a Superman comic even if he wanted to. It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets? What do you think, Slashdot?"
Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful. After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
But every artist's marketability is, to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon his or her popularity. The consumers of his product have every right to express their displeasure by boycotting his work or any collective work to which he contributes.
Do you understand what an anti-gay witch hunt looks like?
A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it. Not even if they do so in an organized fashion.
http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg Nope, Not Goatse.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
A question, then: is it possible for a famous person to openly state a viewpoint without "using their own popularity" to further said viewpoint? How might someone in such a position go about doing that? Or should they simply be silenced, for fear of their fame leading people to agree with them?
He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).
Now, one could argue that publishers have some sort of moral obligation to publish things regardless of controversy, but that's a different argument entirely.
And Card is allowed to believe and say what he wants.
Similarly, Sprouse is allowed to refuse to work with Card. Retailers are allowed to refuse to stock Card's work. DC is allowed to refuse Card's story. And comic book buyers are allowed to refuse to buy stuff by him.
Boycotts are not an attack on your freedom - they're someone else getting to also exercise their freedom.
Later in the story, Anton has *gasp* married. No, not to a man, but to a woman. In fact he is going to be a father. He is happy, talkative, and engaging. He mentions in passing that his homosexual tendancies have made his marriage harder but that with work they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.
That is actually mainstream thought within religion-based anti-gay groups. It is their implementation of "hate the sin, love the sinner" - it is OK to be gay as long as you never act on it. Kind of like staying celibate until marriage except you never get married.
There are a lot of religious people trying to live that way - it comes down to a choice for them, they can repress their sexuality and live in a supportive community or they can accept their sexuality and be cast out all alone. For them they do not perceive it as a bunch of sanctimonious jerks repressing them, instead it is a choice between keeping the life they've spent decades building or giving that up for what may or may not turn out to be a life with more inner peace. It is not an easy choice - both options have major pros and cons.
I haven't read much, if any, of Card's books in the last two decades, so I don't really know any of the context of this Anton character. But I have to wonder if he is at least a little bit autobiographical - expressing an ideal that Card is trying to live up to himself.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
What *is* wrong with polygamy. Provided everyone is in agreement/consenting, and no one is cheating on anyone else?
why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want black people to be free?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want women to be able to vote?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly advocates against interracial marriage?
The times, my friend, they are a-changing. Gay rights is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The question is whether or not it is acceptable for society to discriminate against gay people. A quick glance back at history will tell you which side is going to be the winning side, in case you want to ignore the obvious trend in public polling. Card is actively advocating in favor of discrimination, and that's what people have a problem with. I don't need to claim to be a fan of Queen or have a black friend to be in favor of civil rights, regardless of which group we're talking about. I'm in favor of civil rights because it is objectively the morally right thing to do. So, naturally, I have a problem with people who openly advocate against the right thing to do.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
One of these is not like the others.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it.
And if the same people follow whatever potential work he might have and try to kill off his ability to do any writing at all over time?
Looks like an irrational with-hunt to me (the irrationality of it is that his actual story had nothing to do with gay marriage).
I have a number of gay/lesbian friends, have even been part of some ceremonies, but I see no reason why OSC should be drummed out of writing because of what he believes. If it enters the work at all, sure then I can see a basis for complaint. It's when they attack him just for being him I have an issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Some of my favorite books are written by people who I disagree with. Just because someone hold a different opinion is no reason to prevent them from expressing art. Acceptance goes both ways.
~theCzar
I know this is modern slashdot, so rational thought and intellectual honesty are something of a premium here, but again many of the comments here are out of bounds. They can be summed up in the following:
1: throughout history, leftist governments have killed far, far more than the right counter parts. The left has killed more gays, more Jews, more dissenters than anyone. Again, I know the modern slashdot is king of ignorant, but what exactly do you think NAZI stands for? Perhaps that ahold socialist thing escapes you. Take them, through in communist Russia, the African socialists, and a dash of China for spice, and you pretty much cover all the intolerant psychotics of history. So, can we please stop this shit about right wing hate mongers killing? Look in the mirror, the enemy is you.
2. Most people across the world are against homosexuality. Even in vaunted progressive Californua if us voted down by a large margin. People disagree with it for many reasons. None if these can be discussed within the shrill hostility that you call the slashdot environmnent. Home sexuality is accepted and cheered here because, well, a minority told you to think a certain way and you simply do. Being weak willed is nothing to be smug about.
Now, you go back to your unsupported, illogical group think now.
Ps. Firefly sucked ass, and all the nerds of slashdot seeing the movie still lead it to fail. Your boycott threat is laughable
People always get all offended when I say I'm against gay marriage. Before they even inquire as to why I feel this way, they start asking me irrelevant questions such as, "Would you deny gay people the right to love one another?" or "Would you deny them the right to visit each other in the hospital?"
Then I explain that I think those questions are irrelevant, and that I'm not just against gay marriage, I'm against marriage. Why would I support expanding marriage when I'm against marriage in the first place? This is when they roll their eyes, they laugh. It's funny to hear the hopeless womanizing bachelor be ridiculous. Kind of like how they like to listen to my sex stories. Married people get a real kick out of living vicariously through their single friends. I have to repeat myself and clarify for them to realize that I'm being serious. Yes, I'm opposed to legal marriage.
What does that mean? It means the state has no business in the affairs of marriage. Marriage is a ceremony where two people make an oath to be true to one another for the rest of their lives, and then they usually break that oath at some point. Then they take the oath with another person, and then they usually break it off, too. Third time seems to be the charm.
Married people pay less taxes than I do, although their combined incomes allow them to live better. If they have kids they pay even less. How's that make sense? I pay taxes so their little snot-nosed kids can go to school, and they get a tax break? Why isn't there a kid tax?
But I digress. Marriage should be whatever people make of it. If you can get a priest, rabbi, shaman, or witch doctor to marry you and your significant other -- of whatever sex they may be -- go for it. If you want to share your finances with your loved one then go to a lawyer and draw up a contract. If you want to legally change your name to your spouse's name, then go to court and have it changed. If Mormons want to have ten wives, let 'em. There's no law against having ten girlfriends, why should there be a law against having ten wives?
Basically, a monogamous relationship is a monogamous relationship. I consider the couple who has been together for ten years, had a child together, and share everything except the title of 'husband and wife' to be more married than the couple who have known each other a couple hours in Vegas and drunkenly got married. The only thing legal marriage does is make breaking up a pain in the ass. The only people legal marriage provides any benefit to are divorce lawyers and gold diggers.
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
If they want to run from their homosexuality, that is their business. Not yours.
If a person has to run from their homosexuality, it's most likely pressure from the outside forcing them to. For those people, it was never their business alone in the first place. So pipe the fuck down.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
There is a simple separation between art and the artist.
If I were reviewing one of his novels, I wouldn't pay the least attention to his toxic views on homosexual marriage, unless it's there in the book. I would be happy to write: This is a fabulous book written by a mid-grade asshole. Your call. I'm not advocating that anyone else boycott his lame ass on my behalf. I have myself borrowed two of Card's books from the library because I respect his contributions to the genre.
On my own account, I'm sure as hell not forking over so much as loose change from under the sofa cushion to purchase anything the man has written. His views on gay marriage are toxic squared. Now if I were the artist (and this is a prospect I'm seriously considering in a mid-life fit of career suicide) I have no problem with gay marriage bigots boycotting financial support of my endeavors. (I'm generally opposed to winner-take-all market dynamics in the first place. If some moral market Balkanization would slow the Amazon borgship down, I'm all for it.)
Seriously, what's toxic about Card is failing to distinguish marriage as a social institution from marriage as a deeply personal institution: a commitment by two people to stand by each other. I don't give a damn if the later is redefined as civil union, so long as it entitles those who enter into it to all the traditional secular spousal benefits: insurance, primary beneficiary, power of attorney, etc.
If Card had an honest bone in his body, he'd document his views on the entitlements of civil union. Tell us, do we still need a revolution if the government endorses civil union as the secular equivalent of metaphysically sanctioned procreative marriage?
No, he just grabs onto marriage in its guise as a social institution as if there's no other reasonable claim.
He also conveniently assumes there's no such thing as a heterosexual person who wouldn't have been happier in a gay relationship except for some adverse childhood influence. No wonder all the identity regret flows in a single direction, when the countervailing direction is defined as zero by aggressive logical neglect. I have heard of people leaving straight relationships for the other side, but not yet have I heard a story where the heterosexual phase was attributed to sexual abuse (as opposed to moral abuse). With the moral abuse so pervasive, and far easier to talk about—among the people who aren't actively advocating toxic views—it's hardly surprising the "deflected into normalcy by sexual abuse" category is rarely run up the flag pole.
Apparently he never got the memo on secular democracy. He's living in a country alongside a lot of people who actively reject metaphysical first claim, and far more who passively distance themselves from the bullshit, without bestowing upon themselves any inconvenient social labels.
America is constitutionally a secular democracy. Religion in America is an aggressively individual freedom. A clarifying essay by Card on the errors of the founding fathers would also be welcome. Why doesn't he just admit he believes he's actively insurgent against the original framing of American democracy? That would double my respect for his views, right there.
Really, what need did he have to take up the subject in the first place? How was it his issue? Because when you're religious, it's all your business? How sick is that?
Polygamy is no easier to abuse than a monogamous relationship except in the context of laws that don't recognize the rights of the additional wives/husbands.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
As a white-ish american male, I'm told I have to accept constant assaults on my religion, that a jar of urine with a crucifix in it is indeed art, that I have to treat lifestyles I do not agree with as acceptable by society, that I should accept every view no matter how absurd has some form of merit and thus tolerate it, that sexuality is both something one is born with and a also a choice depending on the person, regardless of the genitalia they were born with.
Yet let a person stand for their principals, that openly speak out of their beliefs, fiscal or social, that go against the wave of "social justices", and they shall be shouted down, ridiculed, and driven from any endeavor by a foaming mob.
Card is a renowned story teller. To have his story killed off because of his personal beliefs is a testament to what is wrong with any society.
It's the same as labeling a heretic of Galileo or Copernicus and dismissing their works simply because their points of view differ from the pervading mob consciousness.
It's the use of political correctness to enforce censorship of unpleasant view points by permanent "victim classes".
A sad thing indeed.
>"Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy"
Just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make that person a "homophobe". Some people against gay marriage have absolutely nothing against gay people or gay couples. And some even support legal gay coupling, with the same rights as marriage, just not called "marriage".
Now, Orson Scott Card might well indeed be a homophobe, but I keep seeing articles that automatically equate non support of gay marriage as homophobia, which is it not.
I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
And the fact that you lump these all together makes you a terrible person.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Within the confines of a single family unit, there is absoltely nothing wrong with poligomy as long as all are fully willing participants for each major adjustment in their 'family contract' so to speak.
The problems poligomoy:
1. They only ever exist in deeply patriarical societies where women are generally repressed or at least marginalized
2. Its almost always forbiudden for Women to take multiple male partners, which would at least allow for some aspect of equality in the mix
3. The practice is also quite commonly associated with with child brides (where much older men marry children/teens) which has its own set of moral and ethical problems to deal with
4. The scarcity of partners in one sex or the other causes deep social issues where the uncoupled are deprived of a 'fair' chance to procreate, which is one reason why on a genetic level, poligomy is a problem (another is less diversity in the gene pool with a single dominant sex coupling many)
The only notable areas of poligomy I know of are in Muslim nations and in small pockets of the US/Canada where they barely escape the laws that firmly define their rights within those nations (often skirting or breaking society's laws). If someone could point out a stable large scale poligomist culture, I'd be interested in it as a purely academic perspective, because it doesn't seem to be a good poster child for a poligomist tolerant society to model itself off in terms of its legal bound regulations.
Bye!
Oh my, that is serious! They even got to the summary, which only talks about comic book fans considering not buying a comic book written by a crazy douchebag and entirely omitted the part about said douchebag being called before the Senate. Oh the humanity!
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The hive mind, which is based on socialization and not science, wants you to see the world in a Boolean measurement: what We approve of, and what We don't.
This is mind control of the oldest type, namely peer pressure and social coercion. There's no reason to pay attention to because it's unscientific and as history shows us, usually wrong.
However, a lot of people are afraid of those who don't follow the hive mind. They fear these people who are not controlled, 'civilized' and neutered by hive mind morality.
Stay free, stay independent, stay clear: avoid the hive mind.