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?"

Comments

I'm not even a fan, but

[elrous0]

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.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Card's view is not an "unpopular" one; it is discriminatory. Unfortunately, it is much TOO popular.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[icebike]

The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[LurkerXXX]

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"

No, because the government didn't stop him from publishing anything. He's still got his right to vote for whatever/whoever he wants to in elections. He's free to say whatever idiotic things he wants. He's free to submit his work to whatever publisher he wants. No part of democracy is harmed.

The market has spoken and individuals have spoken that they don't want to deal with a bigoted ass.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Obfuscant]

The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.

Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?

This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.

Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.

Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[sehlat]

"... separating the artist from the art" is excellent in theory, but a collapsium-plated bitch in practice.

I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy wherein the sequence went:

He: "The police should have the right to search everyone's hard drive over the net without a warrant and erase anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe."

Me: "I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"

He: "Big deal. All the royalties I've gotten from you wouldn't even take me out to dinner at my favorite restaurant."

I haven't been able to bring myself to read his stuff since, and the formerly-complete collection became pulp fiction.

As I said, separating the artist from the art sounds simple but isn't.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

I would be all for the government giving civil unions only, and not touching marriage at all, hetero or homo. If marriage is such an important religious institution, why is the government involved in it when it doesn't really need to be? Why would religious people want the government touching and managing their religious institutions? Just let the government handle things in the minimal legal sense needed, e.g. default behavior of inheritance, taxes, etc., and leave marriage and its definition to churches.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Austerity Empowers]

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

It would be an awakening that what we have here in America is not exactly a democracy (nor in most of the civilized world, though mechanisms vary). If the judiciary system determines that banning gay marriage is somehow unconstitutional (at the state or federal level, and i have little hope or respect for most state "constitutions"), then you may seek to get the constitution changed. At the federal level that requires an amendment to the constitution, which means getting 2/3's of both houses to agree, then passing the vote to the voting public and getting 3/4ths of the states to pass it. Before it is democratic, it is first representative, and even when it is democratic, it is quantized by state.

All of this is what we idol worship in civics classes in school. At no point has the US been a direct democracy, and in almost no cases does "democracy" mean sampling the public and passing laws based on simple majority of opinion at random times.

Changing ANYTHING is very hard to do if people don't agree or adopt polemic positions (and honestly that is very descriptive of many pro and anti-gay marriage supporters). This should be obvious to those bitching about how their "government has failed" when we hit fiscal cliffs or sequestrations or whatever the media wants us worked up over. The judiciary system is no different, in highly contentious debates they can act arbitrarily or by reading of law, it hardly matters as a large portion of us will hate them anyway. If the majority of us do agree on something, we can get it fixed. But since we cannot agree on this issue, it really doesn't matter what they do, lots of people will be unhappy either way.

None of this makes me look for the four horsemen, this is the system created for us, and that has served us well.

 

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Anonymous Coward]

I am having a hard time getting my head around your response, and also icebike's post.

Democracy is a majority rules system of government, involving elections as the means of learning the will of the majority.

So, in order for the "end of democracy" to be brought about, this process of having elections and allowing the results of those elections to determine laws would have to stop.

Am I right here? End of democracy = end of voter-controlled policies?

So.....how does this public disapproval of Card's opinion, and the subsequent story-suspension on the part of a single private business, constitute the end of democracy? Private businesses are generally not voter-controlled, but remain beholden to the laws that ARE voter controlled. Since they are within their legal rights to not publish a story, they are in no way violating or blocking the democratic processes of their government. So, I can't see how this private response to public criticism lends credence to any claims of "the end of democracy."

Further, Kyosha's example of something that WOULD be indicative of an end of democracy (laws being enacted apart from the election process) seems to be a simple observation of the proper scope of the statement "end of democracy." So I don't understand why you are accusing Kyosha of being a one sided pig. I just don't see enough material in the post to even suggest such a thing.

Think you could make this clear to me, perhaps with the same level of detail and respect as I have tried to make this clear to you?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Greyfox]

No, that's just a failure of the tyranny of the majority.

In about half the states, the marriage between Obama's parents would have been illegal back when he was born. Such bigotry now seems quaint, although I assure you that in some of those states there are still people for whom the sentiment is still very much alive. In a few decades, our current bigotry will also seem quaint, I'm sure. I'm also sure that when that day comes, even though we're no longer oppressing homosexuals and Latinos, we'll still be oppressing someone.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[Belial6]

From this day forward, nobody is legally married.

That is actually the correct answer. The big problem with the whole gay marriage debate is that our governments have made the stupid mistake of mixing church and state. Give us 'civil unions' for everyone, and let church by church decide who they are going to recognize as 'married'. Give legal status to everyone who has a 'civil union', and give no legal status to the religious title of 'marriage'.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but

[siride]

It's not censorship. They are exercising their right to express their own views by not supporting a bigot. Why is it okay for Card to spout this crap but it's not okay for people saying they don't want to be associated with it?

OSC has the right to say what he wants

[MadMike32]

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.

Picture worth 1000 words

[flogger]

http://bobcargill.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/535132_10150690521932395_705822394_8026655_1008504104_n.jpg Nope, Not Goatse.

Re:An Old Discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Freedom works both ways

[ravenscar]

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.

Re:This is just stupid.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

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.