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.
On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction,
Well, I can think of four or five times this has come up on Slashdot. Here's one and another. And from that comment by MozeeToby:
It isn't so much about 'preachy-ness' as it is about 'propaganda-ness'. In the Shadow series, for instance, we have the homosexual character of Anton. He is not in any way evil, Card doesn't ask us to fear or hate him as you might expect from a right wing writer.
Instead (and arguably worse), when we are first introduced to Anton we are asked to pity him. He is given a ludicrously strong cognitive dissonance to ham handedly symbolize the dissonance that Card assumes the man must have because of his lifestyle. He is utterly lonely and unhappy, and it is heavily implied that he has considered suicide as the only option to end his suffering.
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.
In my opinion, this is a more disgusting attack on gay rights than any violent diatrabe could ever be.
That probably bears repeating to address your "keeps it out of his fiction" comment.
Frankly, I've given up on Card. I've been chided about this very issue before on Slashdot (several times actually) but I stand by my opinion: You're free to say or believe in anything you want. But if you're an actor, author, musician, developer, athlete or any profession that tries to use their own popularity to further a belief or statement that I find reprehensible, I will actively and vocally make it known that I will no longer patronize you with funds or admiration.
I wish him the best of luck as one human being to another but I will not spend one more cent to him if he's going to use his position as an author to vocally oppose two people of the same sex who are in love with each other. If you think I'm wrong in doing this, then ask yourself this simple question: Would he have such a large podium if he wasn't a renowned author? The answer is: No, he would just be another raving lunatic. So I'm no longer giving him the reverence or publicity that a world renowned author should have.
Boggles my goddamned mind that he could write wonderful novels decrying xenocide and turn around and say such crap. Once again the power of religion blasts the doors right off of any sensible logic.
My work here is dung.
I'm a Christian, but the US is in no way a Christain nation. For what it;s worth, I have no trouble with gays except for the "ick" factor; what you do is none of my business. Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.
I wouldn't be aghast if Richard Dawkins penned it, why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy? He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.
Free Martian Whores!
I always applauded him for being able to keep his personal brand of crazy out of it novels - it surprised me to learn how batshit insane he was, his novels always struck me as supremely rational. I did feel conflicted - on one hand, I didn't want to give monetary support to someone with such disgusting ideas, but on the other hand, I *did* want to support someone who wrote such beautiful stories.
Then I read his Empire - guess he was just saving up all his crazy for that book. I haven't read its sequel; I hear it's even worse. I haven't bought anything from him since then. I don't feel conflicted anymore.
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.
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
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.
What *is* wrong with polygamy. Provided everyone is in agreement/consenting, and no one is cheating on anyone else?
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
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."
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)
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!
Who wrote this garbage? OP should do a little bit of research before re-posting straw men.
"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."
Card never really even came close to saying that giving gay marriage legal recognition could mark the end of democracy in America.
That quote came from an article he wrote back in 2008, shortly after the court in California disagreed with the law that the voters in California had passed. Gay marriage was a secondary issue. It was the fact that court was making new laws. Nobody believes that giving gay marriage recognition could mark the end of democracy in America. Least of all Card. However, letting the courts make new laws when the people have voted... that might.
Card also doesn't believe that traditional married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Whoever wrote that press release was obviously trying to make him out as more of a nut case than he really is.
Frankly, it's obviously working. Nobody here even checked up on it. Slashdot, I'm disappointed.
There was a time when the creative minds of this country were discredited, blacklisted and even arrested because they were accused of being Communists, Radicals, Social Deviants and Homosexuals. Now the Homosexuals have their turn, and have proven they never really objected to McCarthyism, their righteous self-will knows no bounds, and they will oppress as they were oppressed.
Where is the tolerance that they strove for when they were not a mainstream religion of thought? Is this the price of tolerance: More Oppression?!
Ridiculous. This whole scandal, its hypocrisy is galling. Judge the art, not the artist. Some of our very best classics in science fiction are from people who were nonconformists in their day. In fact that goes for most authors... perhaps it is their outspoken natures that drives them to do things the rest of us can do little more than wish we did.
OSC's comments seem almost prophetic in the face of what's occurred.
http://www.beanleafpress.com