Slashdot Mirror
Ender's Game Trailer Released
The first trailer has been released for the movie adaptation of Orson Scott Card's sci-fi classic Ender's Game. It gives us a good look at Harrison Ford as Colonel Graff, Ben Kingsley as Mazer Rackham, and Hugo's Asa Butterfield as Ender. It also demonstrates just how much money they put into the special effects for this movie.
i think some one forgot the 'B' at the beginning of the first word.
Provide a link perhaps?
FX spaceships are cheap. The effects are no better than Iron Sky. Since this has Big Name Actors, they probably spent too much.
In the book, the adults barely appear. But if they paid for Harrison Ford, they probably let him talk too much.
SWEET! Now we can properly bitch about how much it sucks compared to the memories of something we read when we were younger and more impressionable!
I mean, we could do that before, but now that the trailer's been actually released, we can put up a false air of authority as we do so! And we don't even have to watch it, either!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP0cUBi4hwE
If my kids haven't downloaded this by Nov 1, I'll know they weren't paying attention when I read them the book.
This is one book that I couldn't see Hollywood doing justice to. The trailer doesn't really leave me feeling any better about it. Lots of nice effects, but I think it's going to come out all bubble-gum.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Were those F22s at the beginning?
Looks like it might be good and not just another action movie in space.
PS what's the deal with Kingsley's makeup? Was that in the book? I don't recall.
[Emphasis mine] Appreciate art on its own merits and you'll be the happier for it. Not everything has to be politicized. When everything is politicized, we become incapable of finding common ground with people we disagree with. When we can't even appreciate art together with others who have views we disagree with, how can we ever learn to tolerate each other? How can we have unity amidst diversity if we do not, as Plato said, have a communion of pleasure where we might at least rejoice and mourn over some things we hold common?
Just in case anyone didn't know how it all ends, they were kind enough to put the climax directly in the trailer. I'll withhold judgement on the film itself, but that trailer didn't do it for me.
On the one hand, I really did enjoy Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow as a kid (and to a lesser extent the other books in the series). On the other hand, art does not exist in a vacuum and I really do have a hard time separating Card's homophobic views from his works; especially since, in retrospect they do creep into his books at least occasionally.
On the gripping hand, this will almost certainly be a dud. It won't live up to the expectations and hopes of those who wanted the movie made 20 years ago and it won't have much appeal to the others.
well, it has to be better than starship troopers movie.
Don't worry too much; if the Hollywood accountants have done their job right, Card will owe them a few million dollars at the end of the day.
I wouldn't be surprised if he's closeted.
His books are so-so, too. Ender's Game was his best, and even that failed to rise to the level of literature. He's no better than Frank Herbert, which I don't intend as a compliment.
Wagner, Joyce and Pound are dead. And yes, they all should have been boycotted in their time. Obama doesn't label homosexuals as 'abnormal' or link it to paraphilia.
Giving Scott a fucking dime while he's still breathing is validating his disturbing views.
I mean for fuck sakes, the book is highly overrated anyhow.
Card has consistently attacked homosexuals and fought against gay rights, including some damn awful language. Before you see this movie in the theater, google "Orson Scott Card" and "gay rights", and decide if you want to give your money to someone who will actively use it to promote hate speech.
They finally make an Ender's Game movie and it gets 34 some odd replies on Slashdot? Wow, the audience here has really changed...
--"You are your own God"--
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
This is very weak argument to ignore his outmoded views. I am not going to turn a blind eye to what someone is or does just because they are an artist.
There is a distinction between enjoying art separately from it's creator, and participating in commerce that funds people and organizations that you don't support.
(Different AC here.)
I am judging the art on it's merits. I enjoyed Ender's Game. The movie will probably be at least worth watching once. There's a difference between liking someone's art and being willing to give them money for it.
Exactly. It may be a fine movie, but I don't want any portion of my ticket price to be funding anti-gay hate speech, period.
Bean was more badass
Nevermind the fact that OP wanted to see the movie, he was just reluctant to send money OSC's way...
You can judge art by the artist if you want to. And given how much of the artists' soul lives in the art, I don't see why you shouldn't. After all, when you imbibe culture you give it life. You also put yourself in debt to the artist. When that artist was a racist who probably considered you sub-human, it's perfectly reasonable to shun their art.
Why have unity for unity's sake if it means uniting with those you consider evil? Have the balls to reject what you reject.
Fuck Wager, fuck Heidegger, fuck von Karajan. May they all be forgotten.
I think there are some very good reasons for pirating, opposing current copyright law, etc. I do not think the fact that the artist who produced something you enjoyed is one of those reasons.
Apologies: that should read, "I do not think that the artist who produced something you enjoyed might get paid is one of those reasons.
I think the hero would sound more intelligent with a British or South African accent.
Ender's game is a fine bildungsroman, one of the best I read. This movie looks like yet another action movie saturated with high-contrast detail and grim color theme. It doesn't even look realistic.
Anybody who thinks James Joyce was antisemitic plainly hasn't done the research - in particular, hasn't read Ulysses. Or even seen a synopsis of the plot ...
... but then only people who think that Art can play the role of morality or religion should be surprised.
General point is right, though. Which proves that even people who don't bother checking facts get it right sometimes.
Not difficult to construct a list of horrible people who made great novels, great poetry, great art
Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
Apparently, the preceding AC does think that --- perhaps from a "chaotic good" vs. "lawful evil" perspective. Not everyone's moral system need consider overarching legalistic formalisms (e.g. proper forms for copyright law) to be the foundation for determining right action.
For most of their lives the opinions of Wagner, Joyce and Pound were pretty common.
This reminds me of 2 of my ex-girlfriends.
One would not read The Chronicles of Narnia because she was Christian and the books were not.
The other would not read them because the books were too Christian.
I am with Cervesaebraciator on this one – judge art on it’s own sake. And if it bugs you too much then borrow the DVD from the local library – Card won’t get too much money that way.
Exactly. It may be a fine movie, but I don't want any portion of my ticket price to be funding anti-gay hate speech, period.
Tolerance goes both ways. It is far too easy to claim the high road and seek to prevent those with different viewpoints from being heard. It is another thing entirely to stand and defend a persons right to freedom of speech when you don't like their message. If you can't acknowledge his right to speak his mind, then you are no better than he is.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
I do not care about his opinions - I just like to read what he writes.
And I am fed up with gay activists concentrating on someone's opinions instead of works.
Such actions make me vote anti-gay any time.
Gays can have their parades, he can have his blabbing - this is a free country.
The most fascinating part of this, for me, is that I connected with Ender's Game more easily as a young adolescent precisely because I was gay and understood how harsh and how quickly a child has to grow up. I also understood empathizing with my enemy, my enemy not understanding the degree of harm he was doing to me, and not trusting adults or authorities.
I also keenly felt the idea of being tested in subtle ways, in manipulating adults and politics with their own fears, and deeply appreciated the affects of demagoguery before I even knew what it was called.
I felt like Orson Scott Card so deeply understood the plight of being a bright, homosexual child with more self-awareness and introspection than many an adult, that I was shocked to find out that he was so antagonistic to it. This was after I read Speaker of the Dead which seems to so perfectly capture that sensation of oppression.
Maybe my sense of connecting with the author and his general outlook on human emotion was so great, that to find out he is as homophobic as he is caused a deep-seated sensation of betrayal and cognitive dissonance. Also, I don't even want to separate my knowledge of the artist from the art, which is a topic worthy of an essay itself.
Also, I feel that while it seems a bit pushy and bitchy, and will evoke the typical "uppity homosexual" response, complaining about a popular person's homophobia and suggesting that they, and even their art, be considered as lesser because of it, still seems to me to be an effective way at showing strength and causing people to realize the tenuousness of their position.
No art or artist is held to account for all their crimes, and in the fullness of time people will forgive Card as a fuddy duddy for his homophobia, but in the here and now where it has extreme political relevance to my life and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on this globe, I say he is an ass for his views and I do not wish to patronize him. Let the future enjoy him unfettered by these concerns like I can enjoy Wagner now.
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art. So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
If I am correct in understanding this line of reasoning, it must be a terrible burden to bear. For consistency's sake, it would implicate you in the wrong doing of anyone to whom you pay for services, whether a news-paper editor who runs the local daily, a car mechanic, or a doctor. We could imagine the editor, the doctor, and the mechanic attend rallies on the weekend where they say things we consider reprehensible. But according to this line of thought, by paying for the weekly classified ads, getting bronchitis treated, and having brakes checked, is funding reprehensible speech. To be truly consistent in this line of reasoning, you'd need to evaluate the politics (or morals, if you prefer) of everyone you interact with in civil society before exchanging money with them.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society. One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
Before I saw the last name, I read it as Asa Akira. Now THAT is a movie I would go see!
Sorry...
...and nobody is saying not to judge the 'art' on it's own. It's the matter of giving the despicable bag of flesh that is OSC a single fucking dime.
It's the perfect length....
Just have to lay the music over it.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Exactly. It may be a fine movie, but I don't want any portion of my ticket price to be funding anti-gay hate speech, period.
Tolerance goes both ways. It is far too easy to claim the high road and seek to prevent those with different viewpoints from being heard. It is another thing entirely to stand and defend a persons right to freedom of speech when you don't like their message. If you can't acknowledge his right to speak his mind, then you are no better than he is.
There is a big difference between a person acknowledging his right to speak his mind and buying the megaphone for him to speak it loudly.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
'Tolerance' for intolerance is not a type of tolerance. Sorry. Tolerance does not require hate speech to go unchallenged. And nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to speak his mind. What we are saying is that he is a hateful bigot and we are going to boycott (not censor) his works.
Looks to me (based on this trailer alone) that the book got hammered and bashed to fit into the current Hollywood "sci-fi" form factor, lots of shiny graphics/scenery and some fractions of elements from the book (similar to I robot).
Children trained as soldiers? The film Soldier already did that very well, and I got a feeling it is closer to the book than the Ender's Game film will ever be.
Carbon based humanoid in training.
The one book would at the least be a trilogy itself.
This already has too much of the adults in it. not enough of the trials he went through at Academy in it. Hell they are flat out telling him what they are doing. When did they ever admit to their goals in the novel?
This movie already fails. I'll watch it anyways, but only cause it'll be on Epix or Starz or something 6 months after its released.
To clarify, the non-fact-checker I'm dissing is Janis Ian, not cervesaebraciator, whose comments are highly sensible (I reckon) and who has made a good catch in finding the Janis Ian quote. Evidently a fact-checker.
Aberrations have appeared in my destiny prognostication engine!
One might deem it a good thing to do this, but it is not a step toward a tolerant and diverse society.
What a stupid fucking notion.
Here's a hint to lead you in the right direction: if someone uses their position (as an artist, celebrity, etc, etc) to denigrate others and promote hatred then it is your fucking duty as a civilized human being to not support that individual financially or otherwise. If your fucking doctor is an outspoken Neo-Nazi, then you'd be a fucking idiot to keep that relationship. If your car mechanic gleefully is the found member of NAMBLA then I'd hope like hell you aren't giving him your business.
You're either a hypocrite or an idiot. Take your pick.
Are we really calling superstitious bigotry a "different viewpoint?" I don't go in for that multi-culti nonsense. Superstition and bigotry should be condemned. There's no value in denying equal rights to gay people.
annnnnnnnnnnnnnd thats why its getting made. not because of its grand artistry or whatever the f**** excuses people use.
and lenin and a bunch of other douchebags who painted the 20th century in blood.
so fuck him and fuck you too
Ooooo. Good enough to get spine tingles here:
Start the john carter inception style video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ED4k_yn85-o&list=PL140490028A81BE64
then immediately flip to the enders game and start it. John carter good because it doesn't have many words- just lots of imagery.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
if she/he copy pasted bullshit about joyce into a blog its their responsibility. he could sue them for lible if he was still alive.
this scott card apologia is bullshit. the movie is hunger games 2.0 and there are many, many, many more worthy SF stories to tell in film
First and second invasion were fought in the outer solar system, IIRC.
This is a great book, but I don't think a movie can do it justice. Lots of books make great movies, but this book is great precisely because of its subtlety, emotions, and the mind tweaks. I see how you can get a lot of great action sequences out of the story line but they were never even close to the meat of the book, and I am sure the real meat will be lost in the action sequences of the movie. So it will have some cool scenes but will otherwise be just another sci fi movie.
Re: "would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it."
I would not object if GP thought Ender's Game was homophobic and therefore refused to give money for it. But based on his desire to get the movie through bittorrent, GP thinks Ender's Game is something he'd enjoy. His objection, therefore, isn't to this particular work of art, but strictly to the views of the artist. So you're quite right to say that he doesn't deem the artist fit to receive money.
To make clear my objection to this, I'd ask whether the same attitude ought to be applied in other spheres of life. If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
Or to put this another way, imagine a different set of circumstances. Imagine an evangelical walking into a Starbucks and buying a coffee. This evangelical receives very good service and is about to give a tip but notices the barista has an earring in his right ear. What would we think of this evangelical if he did not then give the tip because he regarded the barista as unfit to receive it? (Mind, I'm not trying to say all evangelicals would do such a thing--some undoubtedly would but most are just ordinary folks like the rest of us.) Is it anyway to participate in a society, not to distinguish between a worker and his work when the work is not what we find reprehensible?
A strange wonder one of OSC friends would apologize for him. Too bad that rant is full of false premises and misdirection. If you ask for evidence, take from just one of many the TJ reference. He believed the exact opposite of what JI cherry picked. I might have enjoyed a real attempt at the core this debate which he finally got around to here:
You can't judge art by the artist; it has to be judged seperately, on its own merits.
I agree with this statement because I believe it to be philosophically sound. However, what you and it's author don't weigh in on is whether you would do business with nefarious organization bent on subduing and inculcating the world's population with extreme views by modern standards questions of fine art aside.
I chose not too. And I won't be renting it from the library either. Maybe that's a gray area for you, but financial contributions to such an entity not okay for me.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
This is completely fucking fallacious. Would you use this argument if the doctor was a neo-nazi? Or are groups that attack the rights of gays just being 'political'?
Let me summarize that statement: you think MLK was a fool. He wasn't. When a person is a member of a group that is attacking the civil rights of another then you have a moral obligation to oppose it. MLK used this tactic with great frequency and power. He was criticized by many people because they thought he was too militant. I recommend you read his letter from Birmingham Jail. He rips your argument to shreds far better than I ever could.
No, it may support his efforts to broadcast those views (I find it hard to believe that he doesn't already have enough money to do this adequately, anyway), but buying a copy of one of his books, or watching one of his movies, does nothing to "validate" his views.
To think about this in a more sensible way: you've spent 30 seconds reading this post of mine - you've given me some of your time & attention. Does this mean you now automatically and unreservedly agree with every opinion I hold, now and forever, on any topic - even those unrelated to anything I've written here?
You clearly were asleep when they covered freedom of speech and tolerance in High School. Freedom of speech: the ability to not have the government regulate what you can and cannot say. Tolerance: the willingness to let others live their lives in peace, for as long as they return the favor. Furthermore, merely declining to financially support someone you disagree with is not nearly the same as preventing someone with different viewpoints from being heard.
You're conflating three very different things in one message. Not to mention that that message alone is born, and smells of, intellectual laziness.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
that covers the similar themes, similar ideas, etc etc etc.
if you want to read about sensations of oppression pick any writer shut down under soviet rule, like akhmatova or zamyatin
or maya angelou and other black writers from the south
honestly ask yourself. what the fuck does card know about oppression?
if the answer is not much, then he is the biggest fraud of modern literature. . .
Nobody is suggesting that tolerance requires hate speech to go unchallenged either, but that didn't stop you from erecting that strawman.
Or put another way, if the KKK opened a laundromat, would you wash your clothes there?
The evangelical doing the right thing, given his opinions. The only problem with that scenario is that his opinions are wrong (more silly than wrong, but whatever).
The homophobe bartender? By itself, not enough to care about, though having said that there are degrees of homophobia, all the way from Granddad who was born in a different time and just isn't comfortable with it, to dogmatic religious leaders doing the 'just following orders' thing, to assholes like Orson Scott Card. The quiet person who just disagrees is entitled to his opinion; the asshole who advocates violent overthrow of the government to impose his will on people's private lives isn't entited to his opinion and should be opposed by all decent people.
Back to the analogy: if the bar was run by open homophobes? I wouldn't go there.
Stand up for what you believe in.
I can appreciate Ender's Game for being a suspenseful and somewhat interesting book, but I still think Orson Scott Card is a fucking bigot and I DON'T WANT TO GIVE HIM MY MONEY, which I would do by buying his books. I have no such problems with Wagner or Picasso (who are both dead and thus cannot receive my money). I agree that you cannot judge the art by the artist, but refraining from supporting the artist is another matter.
I also think the idea that you deserve respect for your bigotry because it's based on religion is preposterous. Being born in the 18th century is a good excuse for being a homophobe - being a mormon isn't.
Ender's Game is literature. That's objective fact.
Considering art on its own merits is not the same as contributing financially to its creator, particularly when that creator has consistently used his resources for evil. This isn't about some random things he said in 1990; Card is a board member of the NOM.
The separate judgement works both ways. If the quality of Ender's Game is not to be judged by the views of its author, then neither can it exonerate or excuse them. So we're left with a rather good science fiction series written by a raging homophobic bigot with few redeeming qualities. If the ardent racist Howard Phillip Lovecraft were still alive, the same would apply to him.
Read the book in a library, and rent the DVD.
I read the book and it was just ok. Orson scott card is a bit over rated really. He has good idea but they are always half baked.
That trailer bored me. It looked like just another big budget sci fi summer action movie and nothing else. Not to mention movies where every character is only allowed to express grim determination I find horribly overdone and boring. It just stinks of being generic and sterile. The whole "your our only hope" package got old a decade ago. Or if you will that kid is basically Keanu reeves.
Well, at least you'd know they'd get your sheets white.
I would certainly not tip an openly and blatantly homophobic bartender, waitress or any other service professional.
It is their job to serve the customer, not spout political or social views, especially not reprehensible ones.
Likewise, it is an artist's job to create art. And like it or not, that art INHERENTLY represents the artist, and thus their views.
One thing Enders Game is rife with is authoritarianism, and that is certainly in line with Cards objectionable views.
That's what I said when I wanted to read the Al Qaeda magazine "Inspire". (I really love their "Humor in Hijab" section.) But some liberal muckety-muck from the State Department said it was supporting terrorism, and I'd be going to Gitmo if I kept up my subscription.
I mean, just because I advocate the execution of all Christians and homosexuals doesn't mean I'm personally going kill them. Allah's will will be done, whether I am involved or not.
Yet I'm the bad guy with my so-called "hate speech". It's funny to see how quickly that liberal idealism turns to sanctimonious hypocrisy when deeply held religious belief comes into play.
Card can speak his mind all he damn well wants. But I'm not going to fracking fund him.
Yeah, personal blog, interviews, being on the board of directors of a powerful anti-gay lobby group, details like that. This isn't some personal character trait, it's something this man spends time and resources promoting. If you give him money and publicity, you give it to the causes he uses it for.
The will to power manifests in funny ways, doesn't it, friend?
If you regard the bartender as homophobic, does that mean you wouldn't pay him for beer (since, believing and saying things you consider reprehensible, you've deemed him unfit to receive money)?
You seem to be missing a rather large point - the bartender is unlikely to use his position to promote his views in the way that Card can. However, if the bartender is flying a flag in his bar that proudly proclaims "Faggots aren't human" or other reprehensible statements, than absolutely he's unfit to receive my money. Would you happily hand over your money in that case? Surely there's some viewpoint you find reprehensible - would you willingly immerse yourself in it simply because the wings are good?
The artist or celebrity that uses their position to promote any viewpoint should indeed be regarded in light of those views. That's not to say their art, or service, should be regarded as such, but it should by all mean affect what I do with my money.
And let's not forget it was Card that made a choice to use his position to promote such views and used his position as an artist to gain exposure for them. So why should the 'art' be separate?
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
If disagreeing with someone makes you an authoritarian, how can you disagree with authoritarianism without hyporacy?
Sophistic cunt.
Ah, you sound like a rational fellow! Will you write to the Department of Justice and complain about the harassment and surveillance inflicted on those reading "Inspire Magazine"? I'm very concerned about the abridgment of free speech in this infidel country, and I think that if enough of you rally to our cause, it might be corrected with minimal losses.
That is not what Tolerance is not about live and let live. That is apathy or cowardice.
It is about softening your heart and trying to truly understand what the person believes in. If after you have softened you heart and truly tried to understand that person and you still find them reprehensible – you don’t live and let live – you try to change the people and the system.
In short, when you give money to famous people who use it to become more famous and they share views which disagree with yours you are funding a future you don't want to live in. They have more influence than you do, and you're helping them use it to create a lesser world from your viewpoint. You have a choice as to where you spend your money, and while it can be difficult to determine what the results of your actions will be, when it's obvious then you really owe it to yourself to change your purchasing habits.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
what book is this? i read it as a short(ish) story. good read but as a movie... not so much!
Card doesn't just have beliefs; he is politically vocal about them. He funds multiple organizations that campaign against gay marriage including the LDS and the National Organization for Marriage... which has no purpose other than to oppose gay marriage. He funds them with money earned from creative works like this movie, and even cares enough to become a member of their board of directors.
Card has also said that people engaging in homosexual acts should be imprisoned. His more recent "clarification" of what he meant when he wrote it doesn't change anything. A careful reading reveals it's merely a passive aggressive attempt to deflect attention away from the comment without actually disowning or modifying it in any way.
But no, according to people like you, people who believe that this kind of oppression is immortal are not justified in boycotting card. We're never justified in boycotting card, apparently, because if we did that then, why, we'd have to familiarize ourselves with the life histories of every single person we gave money to.
I don't buy it. The slope is not that slippy. This is someone who has been outspoken on this for decades and is actively using his celebrity and royalties to fund his cause. You speak of tolerance and diversity? It's not fucking tolerant in any way, shape or form to give money to a politically active man who believes homosexuals should be imprisoned.
Being a nerd, at one time, I wanted to catch up on the classic sci-fi/fantasy novels. I read a few top listed ones and must say I was highly disappointed. 'Dune', 'Ender's game', 'Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy' to name a few. These are books ranked at the top by nearly all such lists, but I wasn't impressed by any of them.
Dune was sort of ok. It has a grand setup, and the first half leads you to expect it will develop into something grandiose, except it failed to deliver in the end. Writing style is dry, and a bit pretentious, but overall the story is interesting enough to keep going. But no where would I say it's the #1 sci-fi novel of all time, as claimed by many.
'Ender's game' is a feel good story for teenagers. Has anyone not guessed the ending just from the first few pages? The whole story is basically to say "this kid Ender is a born genius. We'll just see how great he is for the rest of the book!"
'Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy', well, is really not a novel, but a collection of cute humor, and the story seems more like an excuse to put them together. The humor gets tired very quickly, however, and some of it are more on the bizarre side than humorous. The first 2 books' story has some interesting spots, but I finally ran out of stamina after book 3 and never wanted to pick it up again.
One of the few high-ranking novels that I felt lived up to its fame, is Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. Maybe it's because Martin is such a masterful writer, that even boring stuff gets interesting when he writes it. I'd only hope there's more magic and fantasy ingredients in the future stories, and that he can work a bit faster and we don't have to wait every 5 years for the next installment!
Card has some gay characters in his work and they're portrayed sympathetically (or, at least as much as any other of his characters), so the "anti-gay hate speech" can't be referring to his art.
The gay man in Homecoming who has to get married "for the good of society" is portrayed sympathetically? The later Ender books, where he goes on at John Normanesque lengths about how great hetero sex is? His depiction of homosexuality as pedophila in Songmaster?
So it must refer to statements he's made on his personal blog, etc.
If this is the case, I can only reconstruct your reasoning thus (please feel free to let me know if I'm missing your point): 1) Card says things I consider reprehensible; 2) Giving him money supports his ability to say reprehensible things; 3) Therefore, if I pay for his work, I am implicated in the reprehensible things he does.
[snipping long reductio ad absurdum] Yes, you are missing the point. His blog (and other writings) contain offensive hate speech. Card is a prominent author, who gets attention and a 'bully pulpit' because of the success of his works and who uses the profits from those works to publicize and otherwise support his reprehensible views. The ACs who responded to you have done a very good job of pointing out what's wrong with your reasoning; I agree with them. In short, there's a difference between going to a theater where one of the owners quietly donates some of his profits to the KKK (still not the act of a decent human being, imnsho), versus patronizing a theater that has an "Aryans Only" sign out front. Mr. Card is not just supporting causes which I think are vile, he is openly and publicly funding and advocating for them.
To expand a bit on your comment: everything we do is political. At some point, there's a political component to every single action we take in our lives. As a result, your comment that "it politicizes all acts in civil society" is too late: that is already the case. The only question then is whether your actions are internally consistent. Next, to your point that there might someone down the chain of relationships that I disagree with, and that that makes me therefore inconsistent: no one has the time to check every relationship-chain, or every relationship. To argue that that is required in order to not be labeled a hypocrite is to elevate this action above all others in its requirement for political consistency, and therefore unreasonable.
What we're left with then is: do I know what someone's political stance is, how much do I disagree with it, and how much am I ok with funding their political activism? The answers are quick and simple to implement: the check for action is only contingent on knowledge, which is a simple yes/no. The judgment call on how much I object is more difficult, but does not necessitate much research. And the amount of money is simple to know as well: it should be right in front of me at the time of decision. What this also means is that being internally consistent is subject to various gradients, and with plenty of room to evaluate things like the need for polite discourse.
But it also means that there is a point where you are taking action for or against something, and you are no longer merely on the sidelines. Tolerance, contrary to popular opinion, does not require me to tolerate all actions and opinions. That would merely lead to a completely apathetic society where the most heinous actions are shrugged off in the name of tolerance, and where tolerance is only for those strong enough to defend their position, or for those who willingly accept subjugation. That is the exact opposite of what a civil - and tolerant! - society is.
In short, tolerance requires me to take a stance against intolerance, and staying inactive in the face of knowledge is to be complicit. You might consider it to be too difficult, but it actually is the only to way to actually work towards a tolerant and diverse society. Or how else do you think is change going to happen?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Anti-Gay lobby group?
Or did you mean Pro-Marriage?
There is a difference, despite what many wish to argue. it is unfortunate how closed minded "liberal" "open-minded" people really are.
So those who want to own the books are torn between supporting his cause (and not his work, because the money goes to him and he does whatever he wants with it which does not necessarily include supporting his art) or not owning them? At least this is what I gather from your point of view... (Gifts do not count since those had to be bought by somebody, and thus would amount to buying them. Printing them on your own doesn't either, because it's a) not the book; b) considered ethically questionable/illegal).
Did I understand your position correctly?
I am, for one, planning on buying the books (I bought Ender's Game while knowing he was the way he was) because I want to read them and own them. The author can hold his views that I'll hold mine. His works? I've liked what I've experienced so far.
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
Just remember that Card is a person motivated by what he thinks is right not a corporation motivated by money. While you have the right to legally spend your money as you want what you are effectively saying is that you are trying to do is to force someone to change their beliefs or lose their job. So, while you might be acting within your rights, just remember that by doing so you are going against those ideals of free speech and belief that the US was founded on...and if you can't follow them is is any wonder that your government can't either.
By all means disagree with the guy but disagreeing, even vehemently, with him does not mean that you can't admire his skills as an author (although to be honest I'm not impressed with those either).
I've seen so many bashing comments that this one was my breaking point. Any "cause" that describes the other side in such insulting terms isn't helping itself. I wonder how angry you would be if someone said "It's the matter of giving the despicable bag of flesh that is [insert famous gay person here] a single fucking dime." where the whole decision was based on the fact that they were [famous gay person]. But perhaps even asking such a non-politically correct question makes me "homophobic".
I had exactly the same experience, and so his gradual devolution is all the more shocking. I read Treason and was struck by how sensitively he captured the deep friendship between Lanik and Helmut; it's almost impossible to reconcile with his truly vehement anti-gay statements. There's a good article in Salon that goes into a bit more depth.
Bottom line, I'm really torn about the movie; I loved the book, but the idea that I would contribute one more penny to this guy really rubs me the wrong way.
You seem to be talking about art, while the GP is referring to money. Apparently the GP does indeed appreciate the art but would rather not give his money to an artist he doesn't deem fit to receive it.
Thank heavens we don't have places called libraries where you can borrow books and movies for free.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
As one of ACs in this thread who already stated I intend to not pay for this movie (and therefore may or may not end up seeing it), I can't say I really see anything wrong with that. I'm uncomfortable giving OSC money due to how I know he uses some of it, but I'm having trouble saying that the act is giving him money is morally wrong. I, at least, am not going to call you evil for deciding to buy OSC's books.
Personally, I do avoid buying books by authors I don't like (personally not content-wise, that is) in favor of borrowing them from libraries (or friends). This still encourages purchases a little, but not as directly as buying it myself.
I support every man's right to peacefully advocate for his political, religious, or philosophical beliefs. I man think a given man is a fucking idiot for those beliefs, but that makes him no less free to speak.
And if I judged art by the personal politics of the artists, there would be no music left I could listen to. As long as art itself isn't mere axe-grinding on beliefs I disagree with, I'll support the artist. Take e.g. Charlie Stross - I think he's an obnoxious socialist of the worst stripe, but that doesn't cause me the slightest hesitation in buying his books. Heck, most SF authors are pretty liberal, but write about conservative characters in environments where the environment rewards conservatism (though not so much Stross) - what am I supporting by buying those books? Who cares, if it's fiction and not tediously belaboring some political point.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
aliens attack earth - its been overdone. Wake me up when a decent sci-fi comes around. Elysium?
He's an active practicing Mormon who wrote an article for a Mormon audience about how someone can't be a practicing Homosexual and dedicated to the Homosexual scene and also be dedicated to the Mormon church.
Presuming you know anything about the Mormon church, is there anything in that sentence you disagree with? His article was basically you can't serve two masters.
This is all much ado about nothing.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
What is it with religious fanatics that can so little tolerate a hint of disagreement that it ruins their enjoyment of so many things in life? And no, I'm not talking (only) about OSC.
Intelligent people will have contrasting deeply-held beliefs. That's human nature. Your life will be better, and society will involve far less conflict, if one learns some tolerance for people who disagree. It's pure arrogance to think all of your beliefs are right in any case - you're assuredly wrong about something important, something that people a century from now will be shaking their heads sadly about. Monoculture and uniform orthodoxy of belief is a failure mode for a society in any case - diversity of mindsets gives us strength.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes. It's called "living in a small town" where most people hold similar views, or keep their bad views to themselves..
In a larger society isn't necessarily possible to check everyone anymore, but this kind of thinking exists because it's the way people live: in groups that hold similar views. We want to fund those views we feel will help us and not fund those that might hurt us somehow.
-
Yes, frequently. The condition of man, etc. etc...
Indeed, it would be hard for a bartender, qua bartender, to do so. Bartenders have a relatively small audience and people mostly don't go to a bar with political questions in mind that don't involve artificial turf. If a bartender were an ardent follower of Fred Phelps and using his time at the bar preaching against homosexuals, then, as others have noted, he would be doing his job as bartender. If this is the case, then by no means ought one to get paid for work he doesn't do. Likewise, our evangelical would be justified in withhold payment if the barista informed him he didn't serve people who walk around with WWJD bracelets on. The barista, qua barista, is failing at his job.
When you speak of the bartender 'using his position' and the artist 'using his position', however, two different things seem to be going on. When the bartender uses his position as bartender to oppose homosexuality, he hangs a flag in the bar. When an artist uses his position as an artist to oppose homosexuality, he does not do so by acting as a board member of an anti-SSM advocacy group. Rather the artist, qua artist, creates anti-homosexual art. Anyone pro-SSM would rightly regard this art in the same way as a bar with such a flag hanging in it. But GP does not complain that the art is anti-homosexual. Indeed, as far as I'm familiar with OSC's art, he treats homosexuals as sympathetically as any other characters and, given his politics, his inclusion of homosexuals is a credit to his tolerance that his detractors here have not recognized. I think you're quite right, therefore, that GP has deemed the person of OSC unfit for payment.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family. Should such a bartender be rejected? I think we should hesitate before we deem a person unfit to receive money for services they provide. Many have made analogies involving neo-Nazis or KKK members or the like, but I think it is telling that they should go so far. OSC, qua citizen and fellow countryman, opposes SSM. This puts him in league with James Dobson, to be sure, but also with most Americans just a few years ago--including our current President.* Popular opinion on SSM has changed quickly, very quickly if how fast these things have developed in the past is any indication. I would suggest that regarding people as unfit to be paid (for the things they do which we otherwise appreciate) just because they're views haven't changed as fast as everyone else's is not without danger of its own bigotry and intolerance. SSM will win the day (polling and demographics SSM to be the de facto victor; but I think we'll all be better off if the side which loses isn't labeled heretic or thoughtcriminal or unfit. If we can do this, maybe we can get around to enjoying art and other aspects of life without everything being politicized.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
Read the author's notes sometime. This film has languished for years because Ender's game itself was just a series of short stories he adapted into a real book, with a final intent that he could have established characters with which to launch Speaker for the Dead.
The movie will probably be some fun special effects and a thoroughly good adaptation of the Ender/Bean books...but remember that the story is meant to be way more than this.
They don't have some special power to change the world any more than anyone else.
It's not a special power. It's the power to have people care what you say even if it's stupid, or wrong, and it will be conferred on any of us if we have time in the spotlight.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
He believes fags should go to jail? Maybe I'll go see this film in that case... twice.
I think there are some very good reasons for pirating, opposing current copyright law, etc. I do not think the fact that the artist who produced something you enjoyed is one of those reasons.
In that case, I suppose it's a good thing that there are a number of Slashdotters who will assure me that none of the money that I would spend on media ever goes to the creators, right?
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
I had exactly the same experience, and so his gradual devolution is all the more shocking. I read Treason and was struck by how sensitively he captured the deep friendship between Lanik and Helmut; it's almost impossible to reconcile with his truly vehement anti-gay statements.
Orson Scott Card sounds like the classic case of a repressed homosexual lashing out at others who openly live as a homosexual.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
I believe you're splitting hairs. Both the bartender and the artist are using forums which leverage their respective professions and positions (the bar and the blog) to garner an audience. The bartender may attend to the homosexual in a polite and appropriate manner, but he's still engaging in what, in a few jurisdictions, would be labelled hate speech. And my comparison is not at all off the mark with OSC as he has stated that homosexuals are a product of rape and incest, are prone to paraphilia, belong in prison and are abnormal. There's actually quite a bit more but I'll only reiterate what's only been said here since I'd rather not expend further energy echoing his thoughts.
Suffice to say, this isn't simply a matter of OSC wanting to keep the status quo on marriage. In fact, for many (myself included) his opposition to SSM is irrelevant - it's the denigration of a specific group for how and with whom they choose to pair off. I'd suggest if you think that's the sole reason OSC has people riled up you may want to do a little more research.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Looks more like a summary of the book to me.
The entire movie was shown in the clip. I don't even need to go pay to watch it.
And the book wasn't about the special effects and the space battles. It was about Ender. This would've been much more interesting to see filmed on a tight budget, with all the focus on acting, not graphics (which look the same as all of the last space movies released within the last two years).
Yes I read the book, I thought it was garbage pulp fantasy for those of limited breadth and imagination.
At the time I read Ender's Game as an adolescent, I thought it was awesome. Years later I picked it up again, and came to the same conclusion you did.
On the other hand, I didn't take much note of "Speaker for the Dead" as a young reader; it seemed a rather ho-hum sequel. I've since since changed my mind -- as a work of Science Fiction literature, it is the superior work. OTOH, Children of the Mind is still crap, Full Stop.
The analogy, therefore, is not between OSC and a bartender who hangs dehumanizing flags in his bar, but between OSC and a bartender who treats gay patrons as decently as straight patrons, but went to Liberty University and gives money to Focus on the Family.
*Of course, I do not mean to imply that the moral and ethical question is one of popularity. Only to indicate that OSC's views are not so far outside the the mainstream as to merit the kind of abusive comparisons to fringe groups as have been made here. OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage. The KKK wants to lynch homosexuals. There is a difference.
OSC isn't simply opposed to SSM.... he believes they are 'abnormal', belong in prison, prone to paraphilia and a product of rape and incest. In several jurisdictions it's considered hate speech - though I don't subscribe to the idea of criminalizing speech. And your comparison was entirely fair - the KKK doesn't actually publicly endorse lynching homosexuals any longer but do state that it should be a crime. Just like OSC.
His opposition to SSM is irrelevant. I don't give a hoot if he's for or against it, to be honest. That's a difference of opinion. I do care, however, if he denigrates a segment of the population based on how or with whom they choose to pair up. And I state my objection with my wallet.
It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
um, not. Funny how your authoritarianism. Mr. Fellow Anonymous Coward, extends to telling me what I think and wish. Talk about a will to power!
Talk all you want. However, speech has consequences, and when you are on your employers time (including the self-employed like Card), then you get to live with those consequences.
OTOH we all have our small amount of power. If we don't exercise it, in the services of good and self-protection, might as well be dead.
If our saying these things interferes with your enjoyment,
well then, perhaps something is going on deep in your mind or soul that is bothering you.
Let it out, think on it. I promise it will be good for you.
Oh, and taking it up the ass? Don't knock it till you've tried it. Several times. Preferably with an expert.
This is true, but I think it would be insufficient for this line of reasoning. Books in libraries are bought based on their popularity. If Ender's Game is checked out frequently, the library will buy more books by Card. What's more, when the book wears out from frequent use they'll have to replace it. All of this will result in royalties for the artist, somewhere down the line.
Of course, one may well say that the actual amount of money caused by you checking out a book for movie from the library would be infinitesimally small. But consider that the discussion here is about buying a movie ticket. After all the money that goes to the studio, marketing, shareholders, the production crew, actors, the guy who sells the tickets, the guy who cleans the bathroom at the theater, how much of the $10 your ticket cost will likely go to OSC?
But the issue here isn't just giving money to people one disagrees with anyway. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Card gets a penny from the ticket purchase. Of course, whatever he gets in royalties will be taxed, so half of that penny at least will go to the federal government. Further, LDS members give a tithe of their income. That leaves your contribution to OSC at $0.0045. The man's likely to spend a goodly amount of money on his house, education for his kids, taking care of family members, retirement investment, etc. It would be hard to guess quite what goes to what. But let's be generous and say he spends %10 post-taxes of all the money he gets travelling to anti-SSM rallies, paying for anti-SSM pamphlets, giving to anti-SSM politicians, and helping to fund NOM. At this point, the contribution of your ticket toward those causes, filtered through all these intermediaries and in fact made so you can enjoy a sci-fi film, is down to $0.00045.
Folks here are saying they won't buy a movie ticket, not because they don't want to see the movie or regard the movie itself as homophobic, mind you, but because a fraction of the money involved will go to someone who advocates views regarded as reprehensible. If inadvertently contributing $0.0045 to a cause one finds reprehensible is so objectionable, then most of our commercial acts will also be. Indeed, I oughtn't to pay taxes for I would hazard a guess that more than $0.0045 of my money has paid for wars I regard as unjust (even if they didn't cause undue civilian casualties). If you've ever given to either of the major political parties or supported them in any way, I can guarantee you've motivated at least $0.0045 worth of harm toward some cause you care about. I do not think this is about the amount of money or the support of causes one finds reprehensible, however. It's about a notion of personal purity that requires one to refuse to give even a half-cent to an artist who's produced art he enjoys, because the artist himself is considered unfit. Even checking a book out written by such a person would besmirch such personal purity.
OSC wants to overthrow the government and use the force of the law to control what goes on in people's bedrooms. Acknowledge that fact and adjust your argument.
PS - it seems to be that you are implicitly agreeing that one should not patronize a laundromat run by the KKK. Is that so? If so, do you then acknowledge that you should factor in any ethical failings of others when you do business with them, even when their ethical failings do not directly impact the business at hand? In other words, do you acknowledge the validity of the principal of boycotting OSC, and are now only arguing over the degree of his ethical failing (read: hate speech)?
Ender's Game ought to be more war-worn than shiny: less Deep Space Nine and more Saving Private Ryan
What is it with religious fanatics that can so little tolerate a hint of disagreement that it ruins their enjoyment of so many things in life?
Most religious fanatics I know are among the happiest people I know. Do you have any evidence that these people are miserable?
Intelligent people will have contrasting deeply-held beliefs.
True, but intellectually rigorous people will strive to keep the strength of that belief in proportion to the evidence for it.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
first Chronicles is very clearly a Christian work... it oozes with allegory and if you study CS Lewis at all it was on purpose. CS Lewis was from the UK and their version of "christian" is considerably different than our "Southern Baptist" or "evangelical" ways. So I can see wanna-be super christians calling his work not christian enough.
getting back to discussion, that's why people get so upset with guys like OSC. Mormons, as a sect, have been actively dressing up like other mainstream sects and injecting their beliefs into mainstream religious venues they are not entirely welcome. Everything from rebranding to "Church of Jesus Christ"... to mimic the very common "Church of Christ" in rural America to taking over the Boy Scouts, they actively ENCOURAGE their members to "stealthily" slip their Mormon message in to their work. So the fact that he throws his hat in their ring AUTOMATICALLY sets the public to ASSUME he has a similar agenda... unless he is going to send his OWN message.
I would say the BIGGER reason he gets such reactions is that his book is EXPRESSLY about adults deliberately misleading kids to act a certain way and they end up destroying a species. In his book you're supposed to feel bad that the kids were mislead... Said kids that read the book understood the meaning... and adults telling kids to openly punch gay people in the face when they see them for breaking some ancient taboo is kind of the same thing he wrote AGAINST kids doing in his book. Don't you think?
Hair-splitting is what this whole conversation is about. We're talking about the amount of money from a movie ticket that will offer material support to someone whose views are regarded as reprehensible, after the cash from that same movie ticket has gone to paying everything involved in the making and marketing of that movie, paying shareholders, financing the movie theaters, paying taxes, etc. etc. The question we're hair-splitting about is whether that fraction of money constitutes support for the views or implicates the ticket buyer in some of the activities the artist engages outside of his art. I think I'd find an objection to buying the Ender's Game book easier to understand than a ticket to the movie (recognizing, still, that there's nothing homophobic in the book and much of the price would still go to taxes, shareholders, production, marketing, and the bookstore rather than royalties). But it seems to me that it will take some very fine distinctions before the case can be made that purchasing a ticket to see this movie (which, again, does not as far as we know have content in it that would be considered homophobic) is either morally or ethically objectionable.
Fair enough. Most of what people have cited here has been membership with NOM. That is, most of what people have cited who've not simply indulged in name-calling and unhelpful comparisons. Incidentally, thank you for the civil conversation.
This trailer looks like they've turned the book into an action film - which the book most definitely was not. The things I remember most about it (and it's been some ten years since I last read it) was the relationship Ender had with his strange brother and sister, that he was bred for the job, and throughout he has no idea that what he's doing is not a test or an exercise. He also kills two of his fellow children whilst growing up, albeit somewhat accidentally. And he ends the story has a haggard and worn out child who is at the end of his tether.
This looks like yet another film with climatic space battles and lots of special effects - an action film rather than a science fiction film. I'm disappointed they've lost all of the mystery and pathos. The central part of the story was about Ender training in zero gravity, to be able to lead large groups of people and to innovate tactically. That seems to have been lost as the main element of the film.
I'm not going to go see this, based on this trailer, it's lost all elements of the story that I really liked. Ender never screamed commands as a world exploded. I don't need to see Harrison Ford and Ben Kinsley, both excellent actors, wandering about looking serious (again) and telling Ender he has to save the world. Ender did, but he didn't know it at the time.
"Remember, the enemy's gate is down".
You apparently missed the part of the book where due to overpopulation, it was only legal for most couples to have two children. Ender's parents were given special permission from the government to have a third child because they hoped it would be a super-genius. To secure that permission, they had to agree to give up custody of him to the government if it wanted him. They hoped that he would wash out, but he didn't.
Mr. Card has a long and well-established history of homophobia and attacking gay rights. He's been a board member of the anti-gay marriage National Organization for Marriage for years, and has written far more than, "one article for a Mormon audience". Here are some examples, more can easily be found with a quick google search.
"I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that’s being attempted. And the idea of ‘gay marriage’ — it’s hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison." Interview with Salon
From his article for the Deseret News, "The first and greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America." That's not directed at a Mormon audience, it's a local paper.
From People For the American Way, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the booksto be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens."
'Tolerance' for intolerance is not a type of tolerance. Sorry. Tolerance does not require hate speech to go unchallenged. And nobody is saying he doesn't have a right to speak his mind. What we are saying is that he is a hateful bigot and we are going to boycott (not censor) his works.
Well put. I have yet to see a single post here advocating censorship or Mr. Card or any of his works.
This notion of "funding people [...] you don't support" is totalizing: it politicizes all acts in civil society.
No. There is a threshold that must be crossed before anyone cares enough to let their actions be influenced.
Say what you want...I don't give a shit. But money from the Mormon church, combined with a ton of lies, got a bigoted amendment to the California constitution passed. Money given to Card (at least 10%) will make its way towards supporting their hateful agenda.
Arguing against funding an agenda that's different from yours is entirely different than arguing that someone's speech should be limited. There's a ton of us here that believe that The Supreme Court got it horribly wrong when they ruled that money is a form of speech. Speech, and nothing more, is speech. Card and the rest of his bigoted brethren can say whatever they want. But we don't have to listen to them...nowhere in the first amendment is there any right to be heard. And nowhere in the first amendment does it say that there are no consequences for speech. If your speech causes people to want to boycott your products, there's nothing wrong with that.
But perhaps even asking such a non-politically correct question makes me "homophobic".
It isn't about a fucking 'cause', asswipe.
I think that should answer you question, liquid.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Or put another way, if the KKK opened a laundromat, would you wash your clothes there?
Are you kidding? Blacks would be lined up around the block, with another line the other direction of ACLU lawyers, all demanding the KKK must service the public with no discrimination.
If a bartender tells a gay man to "Get out!", a lawsuit will be filed before the door closes behind him, and every gay in the neighborhood will start going there, "just to show him".
People love to give money and financial support to people whose politics they hate, and they get laws passed that enforces their desire to do so. It sounds like crazy bullshit, and actually it is crazy bullshit, but it's still the way things are today.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
People most often hate things that they see as weaknesses in themselves. (ie: He's gay.)
Card doesn't use his work to advance his political views. Not that I can see, anyway.
in middleschool they teach you to reference sources....the slashdot post has no link to the actual trailer, nor does the crappy article it links to... crappy because it has no link to the trailer....
Not a particular fan of Mr. Card, but I'm genuinely curious - for all the people trying to split hairs and convince us that Card is a reprehensible human being, and his writing deserves no attention from anybody, etc. etc. Where do you draw the line?
Are you totally fine with the public schools using Ender's Game in a classroom setting?
How about including it on a suggested reading list?
Is it okay to have his books in the school library, where any student can find it?
What will your response be the day your child comes home with one of Card's books, having borrowed it from a friend?
If supporting him supports hate speech, will you begin boycotting retail stores that sell his work?
After all, we keep hearing the term hate speech bandied about... hate speech has been criminalized in many situations, and we keep hearing that "hate speech can't go unchallenged" - so where do you draw the line, if you're not advocating censorship?
I get the point, but I'm certain those same people are unwittingly committing to that cause on a regular basis in far greater amounts. This OSC boycott smacks of a bit of bandwagoning. Kony for 2013 sort of thing.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Is my position that people who want to own stuff have to decide between supporting the industry that produced it and not owning it? Hell yes, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter if it's some sleek electronics gadget produced in China under bad labor and environmental controls or entertainment IP produced by someone who actively campaigns against the rights of fellow human beings.
You certainly have the right to spend money on anything you want. You can buy stuff from the KKK too. You just don't get to delude yourself that you are not contributing, in a tiny way, to making the world a worse place.
Not a particular fan of Mr. Card, but I'm genuinely curious - for all the people trying to split hairs and convince us that Card is a reprehensible human being, and his writing deserves no attention from anybody, etc. etc. Where do you draw the line?
I draw the line at me giving Mr. Card money. If I'm aware of someone else intending to give him money (something that happened pretty rarely before hype for the film started to get rolling), I do tell them that he's supported some very homophobic positions and that they might want to do a little googling before they give him their money.
Are you totally fine with the public schools using Ender's Game in a classroom setting?
Totally fine? No. The idea makes me twitch a little, but I'm not going to throw a fit over it. I'd likely send a copy of the same letter I give to bookstores and public libraries, making sure they realize how actively bigoted Mr. Card is. (Now that you mention it, I should probably do that for all my local public school libraries.)
How about including it on a suggested reading list?
I wouldn't include it on a list I put together, because I really don't want to see a whole classroom's worth of students buying his book. It does have a place on, say, a history of military scifi or a list of Hugo and Nebula winners, but on any such list in the immediate future I would include a disclaimer suggesting prospective readers borrow a copy rather than purchase it outright, with a footnote as to why. (Bigotry aside, it's probably better, both in terms of writing, content, and sub-text, than a great deal of the other mil-scifi out there. I would recommend something by the far superior Lois McMaster Bujold instead, though. Maybe Ethan of Athos? :-))
Is it okay to have his books in the school library, where any student can find it?
Yeah. It wouldn't be my first choice to purchase, were I a school librarian, but again, not something I'm going to pitch a fit over. A book that's on the shelf has been bought and paid for. I certainly wouldn't advocate the library turn away a donated copy of Ender's Game. I would suggest than there are probably better books to spend money and shelf-space on than Mr. Card's work after Speaker for the Dead.
What will your response be the day your child comes home with one of Card's books, having borrowed it from a friend?
That it's time for the speech about the difference between authors and their work, assuming I haven't given it already. If it's not one of the better (aka. earlier) ones, I might also suggest they read Ender's Game instead. If I have already given the speech, I'd hold up Mr. Card as a case in point, and then commend my child for being smart enough to not give the bigot more money to spread hate with. After they've read it, talk about what they got out of it and what else might be in there, which is SOP for any book they read.
If supporting him supports hate speech, will you begin boycotting retail stores that sell his work?
Stores that sell his work get a polite letter and email explaining my position, as did my local library. (I don't know if I can take any credit, but they appear to have stopped ordering his newer work - they've got nothing after Ender's Shadow.) Ultimately, I'm boycotting OSC, not just anyone who carries his work. I also put business cards pointing out Mr. Card's political positions along with hyperlinks to some of the things he's said into his books when I see them on the shelf.
After all, we keep hearing the term hate speech bandied about... hate speech has been criminalized in many situations, and we keep hearing that "hate speech can't go unchallenged" - so where do you draw the line, if you're not advocating censorship?
As I said above, he'll get no money from me, and I try t
"what you are effectively saying is that you are trying to do is to force someone to change their beliefs or lose their job... remember that by doing so you are going against those ideals of free speech and belief that the US was founded on"
Logically inconsistent. This is what passes for +5 these days?
TL;DR: It's not his personal beliefs that we're objecting to, it's his attempts to force them on the nation as a whole. That's directly counter to the ideals of the USA, incidentally.
First of all, none of the people I've met who have stated their goal of avoiding giving Card money have said it was because they don't agree with his beliefs, it's because they don't agree with how he spends his money. It's more akin to not giving money to a wino who spends every cent he acquires on turning himself into a human-shaped puddle of urine and rags in an alley. That said, there are almost certainly some who would nonetheless boycott his works even if he announced that henceforth he would have nothing to do with, nor provide any funding to, the National Organization for Marriage or any similar group, yet stood by the beliefs he had expressed, so that's a relatively weak point.
On to "force somebody" in paricular: if a street preacher or televangilist shouts at me about sin and hellfire and damnation for anybody who doesn't donate to his particular church, and I choose not to donate, would you claim I am attempting to "force somebody to change their beliefs"? Not at all! I don't care whether his beliefs change, but I'm not going to pay him after he shouts them in my face and attempts to indoctinate me in beliefs that are contrary to my own. People whose beliefs are in line with his will take care of him, or perhaps not, but it's not my job to ensure he has a job!
Of course, that's really the crux of the issue: "forcing" somebody to do something by voting with your wallet. Hypothetically, is OSC gets blacklisted by all major publishing houses and all bookstores refuse to carry his works - an extremely absurd hypothetical, but that's pretty much what it would take for an author to "lose his job", he can still self-publish and start his own distribution system. Nobody is stopping him from authoring books. The decision of whether that's worth doing when nobody will buy them is on him, but nobody is forcing him not to.
Oh, and while we're discussing "forcing somebody...[to] lose their job", bear in mind that people lose jobs as a consequence of actions which are unappreciated by their employers (and for an author, one's "employers" are really "the people who purchase your books") all the time. If somebody breaks into a house and steals a TV, they can be fired for that. "Thief" is not an employment-discrimination-protected category of person. Nor is "homophobe". Incidentally, in many states, "homosexual" is, though that's not really relevant here.
That brings us to the "ideals of free speech and belief" part of your post. Exactly which ideal upon which the US was founded indicates that we should financially support people who use their wealth to push for institutionalized discrimination against a minority population, again?
Card is allowed to talk all he wants. The government isn't going to shut him up (unless he starts threatening violence against people). Any citizen who tries to shut him up will be committing a crime, and be prosecuted for it. Nobody has to give him a podium, though. The podium Card uses is the money he receives in return for his writing. Why do you imply that he is entitled to that podium? "All men are created equal" certainly doesn't suggest that just because one person writes good science fiction, that person's opinion on civil rights should be given more weight than those of a pauper in the streets!
I could also turn your argument right back on you: a boycott is a form of speech. Why should Card be permitted to preach hate and prejudice, and the rest of us not permitted to tell him that we refuse to support his position?
As for "... and belief", that's really the crown on the
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You're arguing the immorality of receiving something (the art in Card's case, a beer in the bartender example, good service in the barista example) without paying for it. That's a perfectly reasonable position to take, although in the case of art it's an interesting one; some artists would rather that the art be enjoyed without pay than that a potential observer of the part skip it entirely (I have no idea what Card's views on the matter are).
Once again, though, it has nothing to do with your earlier post. Your excerpt from Janis Ian, and your commentary below it, express the value of art as distinct from the value of the artist. If you believe that so strongly, shouldn't you be calling for people to see the movie even if they aren't willing to pay Card for the privilege?
For the record, I don't care for the view that it's OK to pirate content you don't want to pay for, regardless of the reason. I'll probably just do without, though (maybe borrow if at some point). Maybe if Card wants his art to be appreciated by people, he should consider not being a hate-mongering douchebag trying to force institutionalized discrimination against a minority group into our nation's legal system, though...
Also, you apparently completely missed it (on account of having clicked "Submit" as it stands) but your analogy with the barista is bullshit. I'm not boycotting Card because I don't like how he dresses or because he's Mormon or because he (presumeably) eats meat or because I can't prove he doesn't murder little children and then mail their ashes to the parents. None of those things (including the inability to disprove something that I have no evidence in support of either) harm anybody to any meaningful degree. Using your celebrity status and wealth to push for government-enforced discrimination? That hurts people. I wouldn't tip somebody who did that either, no matter how politely they served me!
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
I don't care if a bunch of crazies* want to exclude other crazies** from their personal asylum.
I do care when the crazies try to enforce their asylum's rules on the rest of the country.
Look up the National Organization for Marriage, why it exists, what it does, who finacially supports it, and its board of directors.
Then consider whether you're a dupe, a troll, or an apologist of homophobia and bigotry for suggesting that people are primarily objecting to an article Card once wrote...
* Religious people in general, but Mormons in particular here if that makes it easier for you to consider the argument.
** Again, religious people (not gay people).
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Would you PLEASE mentions in ADVANCE that those are MASSIVE spoilers for the book?!?
You just ruined Ender's Game (the book) for me. GO FUCK YOURSELF!
Tolerance does not go both ways. He's a homophobic bigot who believes me and my friends are fundamentally evil/wrong.
I'll steal the movie, 'cuz I want to see it, as I enjoyed the book. But that hypocrite receives not a penny from me.
Every time we spend a penny, we vote for the kind of world we want, and for those whom we want to be powerful and influential within it.
I don't understand why clips on /. require Flash... Common guys, you can do better than this.
When an artist uses his position as an artist to oppose homosexuality, he does not do so by acting as a board member of an anti-SSM advocacy group. Rather the artist, qua artist, creates anti-homosexual art.
False. I mean, not entirely false, but that's not all they do. Orson Scott Card has publicly spoken out against homosexuality outside of his works, and people are more likely to listen to him than to you or I because he is more popular. It's just that simple.
OSC wants to keep the status quo on marriage.
OK, but same-sex unions were once the status quo. It's the queers who are the traditionalists here...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Does anyone here actually want to talk about the movie? :-P
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
There are mormons who would disagree./
I have a feeling that the act of "dedicating" yourself to the Mormon church is equivalent to trying to serve two (three, four...many many) masters. That many humans running a political, social, and religious organization which intends to tell you what to do, what is right, and what isn't? Listening to yourself, as we all know with our own moral struggles and inner wrestling over difficult decisions, can be like serving two masters.
His point is really that homosexuality is so bad, so egregiously unfit to be practiced by a church member, that it would completely undermine his moral activities there. This is not a universally held viewpoint of Mormons, and it is a reprehensible statement written in the most bland way he could. So yes, I disagree with his point.
Most religious fanatics that I know are among the least happy people. The people that seem to me to be the most happy are those that are very blandly religious. I actually don't think I've met a religious fanatic I would consider a happy person. I've met many of them that worked indefatigably to convince others that they were happy people....
Ah! So then it's all about whether or not the buyer can live with the knowledge that they helped a cause they disagree with, and completely unrelated to what they're paying for. As long as they are making a conscious decision.
Thanks for answering!
I don't care if I'm wrong. I only care about everyone obtaining something from the discussion.
"It also demonstrates just how much money they put into the special effects for this movie."
Because that's always a guarantee of quality.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This is a fantastic little exposition, and is very insightful. I've really enjoyed some of Card's work and found it quite thought provoking at times. It also helps me see (not necessarily understand) how someone with a drastically different world view can still approach controversy in a similar way. Depriving yourself of broader understanding on political grounds seems counterproductive. Even the Dalai Lama is going to have some character flaws, that's humanity.
I also see the other view point. If I am annoyed, or just 'tired' of someone's public agenda why should I continue to support it? Can I just approach this on a case by case basis? There is also a distinction between supporting a public figure's agenda and exploring the knowledge and experience that is out there to be had. I likely will not be missing out on personal enrichment if I skip this movie; Ive read the short story, the novel and a sequel or two. It is up to me whether I want to spend money on it or not and for what reason.
I wouldn't call it a "hymn to violence," exactly, but it definitely focuses on the conditioning necessary to make soldiers who are capable of doing what is necessary to win at any cost. Part of the premise is that humanity's survival is at stake, and in order to survive, they need a leader who is not inhibited by conscience. As they explain to Ender, he must "end them or end us," no middle ground. It's painted in black and white.
When Ender discovers he was lied to, it's a turning point for him. Not only does he find he's done unspeakable evil, but he has to live with the knowledge that it wasn't even necessary. That sets the stage for atonement. When you trust the people in charge, don't be surprised when they use you for their own purposes. In every war, each side demonizes the other so the soldiers will have no doubts about their mission. Look at how the Germans and Japanese where characterized in American media during WW1 and WW2.
And in his Ask me anything he is coming across as both someone who knows and cares about the book, and as a pretty cool guy.
Everything from rebranding to "Church of Jesus Christ"
If you had any idea about the LDS church you would know that the official name has always been "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". "The Mormons" has always been a nickname, taken from the Book of Mormon which is viewed as scripture, similar to and complimentary of the Holy Bible.
If you are going to disagree with the teachings of that (or any) organization, feel free; spouting lies and misinformation just makes you come across as an idiot, though.
Yes, anyone who disagrees with gay marriage is a bigot and a homophobe.
“I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or considered.” - Bill Clinton 1996, just before signing DOMA, which denies Federal benefits to married gay couples.
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." - Barack Obama 2008
How about letting people disagree without name calling?
What I need to know is: what does the key grip for this movie think about gun control? I am in danger, through my lack of information, of possibly funding someone that I would vehemently disagree with. This cannot be allowed to happen.
I find it interesting how people talk about the need for tolerance in others as long as it doesn't counter any of their own views. Yes, OSC has strong views against homosexual behavior. George Takei has strong views for marriage equality. Why should we be tolerant of one but not the other? OSC is seen as attacking "gay rights" and Takei is seen attacking "traditional values". It seems silly to me to discount the creative works of either in the name of tolerance, since that just shows your intolerance to their views.
For the record, I don't care for the view that it's OK to pirate content you don't want to pay for, regardless of the reason.
Actually, in this case a better argument would probably be that if somebody wants to boycott Card, they should not pirate it either because piracy induces secondary purchases through word of mouth and other network effects. (For example, you download it, read it, and then say something like "I pirated Enders Game because I don't want to give Card any money, but it was actually quite good. Too bad the author is such an asshole", then you might well tempt others into getting it for themselves, and some of those might even get it through legal means.
The effect would probably be smaller than normal in this case, though, since word of mouth from a person who hates the author probably wouldn't be as effective advertisement as from somebody neutral to the author.)
Oh no... not what you think. All of the opinions about the trailer (movie.trailer != movie), the rants about Card's personal views, the woe and despair over how bad everything is and the doom of sci-fi... 100% conjecture, categorically unprovable.
What this thread does prove is how pivotal and evocative Ender's Game, as a work of literature, is and will continue to be for the science fiction genre. This thread would not be so controversial if this wasn't already true.
I read the novel right after HS graduation. (yeah, go fig'... I'm a "seven digit"... how did that happen!?) There's more strong opinions here than there were at the NRA conference-nay-coronation-ceremony, and in the same light, the same tones are struck about the same old flawed arguments. Despite that, or rather because of it, this is clearly one of the greatest works in all of science fiction!
I'm going to see it, and pay to do so—in theaters and in 3D—not because I think the trailer depicts a good movie, but because I don't believe that a trailer is always an accurate synopsis of the film. (e.g., remember the Matrix trailer? How about any of the M. Night Shyamalan works? Those didn't reveal the entire plot, either.) Just because we know how it ends doesn't mean we know how the movie gets there.
No piece of cinematographic work can be measured by how it ends, for it is the journey that entertains. Anyone who claims that their judgement is certainty is only upholding the theory of self-fulfilling prophecies. Plain and simple; you don't know until you've seen the whole thing.
As for Mr. Card's personal views, I may not agree with them, but I will defend to the death his right to have a different viewpoint. In the meantime, if he can continue to create and imagine deep characters and interesting plots, then I will continue to appreciate his work. Doing so does not–in any way–validate Mr. Card's personal views, saying "I agree with Mr. Card's views," does.
In the same sense, paying to see Tom Cruise in Oblivion is not supporting Scientology in any way. I just happen to believe that The Last Samurai was the absolute last movie wherein Mr. Cruise played a believable character. Also, I'm not going to pay to see another movie with Morgan Freeman having to explain everything to a clueless protagonist; although I do love Morgan Freeman as an actor... and titty sprinkles.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
My memory is that Ender was told that they were looking for someone to lead the fleet that had departed for the alien frontier decades before. They simply neglected to tell him that they made their decision and the fleet he was leading in the training exercises was the actual fleet.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
The military command lied to Ender by pretending he was still in a training exercise, but they did not lie about the need to "end them." Without communication with the aliens, there was no way for the humans to know that the queens had realized their mistake and were perfectly willing to live in peaceful coexistence. Given the sheer luck that allowed Razer to win the previous battle for Earth, they were reasonably certain Earth would never survive another attack.
It was only later that Ender was able to communicate with the remaining queen and learn the full story. He was upset about being lied to and having caused so much death, but I think he understood why they lied to him. He didn't like it, mind you, but he understood it was the only way to get him (or anyone) to do what he did.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
And what is this about Beethoven being an antisemite? I've never heard that. It seems out of character. Beethoven was enthusiastic for the French revolution, and Jewish emancipation was one of its achievements.
Wow, this gets marked as insightful? I assume my mechanic is a good guy. If I find out later from a neighbour that he is a member of the KKK, I decide that I don't want him to get any more of my money so I go to a different mechanic. Is it that hard to understand?
And 'tolerant and diverse society'? Seriously? So if I criticize someone who is intolerant of gays them I am being intolerant? You have a twisted point of view.
TL;DR:
Ah, I see you have a sense of irony.
if a street preacher or televangilist shouts at me about sin and hellfire and damnation for anybody who doesn't donate to his particular church, and I choose not to donate...
I would hope that you can see that there is a difference between a person asking for donations to support a cause and say, selling PCs. If I donate to a political party X then I am specifically supporting that party. If I happen to buy a PC from someone who supports political party X I there is zero implication that I support that party. Do you really think that everyone who watches a film with Tom Cruise in it supports scientology?
Exactly which ideal upon which the US was founded indicates that we should financially support people...
Again you utterly miss the point which is that you should make your purchasing decisions based on quality of service/product not whether the creator has acceptable political beliefs...at least if you want to have any sort of effective free speech. Why not just accept that if his ideas are wrong then people will not listen to him and he will be ignored: why should you even feel the need to silence him by denying him a livelihood? It's far better to let him have his say and then engage in a debate as to why he is wrong. This way others can learn both sides and decide for themselves and that is how a free and open society is supposed to operate!
Tolerance goes both ways. It is far too easy to claim the high road and seek to prevent those with different viewpoints from being heard. It is another thing entirely to stand and defend a persons right to freedom of speech when you don't like their message. If you can't acknowledge his right to speak his mind, then you are no better than he is.
All true - but the parents post was neither of those things - he just doesn't want to fund the message.
I can acknowledge someones right to speak without either paying for it or having to actually listen to it - the right to free speech also comes with right to choose what you listen to and what you pay for.
Tolerance goes both ways.
"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
- Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies"
GP made a distinction that you seem to have missed: it's one thing when the person holds a certain view and openly shares it. It's another when they make pushing that view onto others a significant goal in their life to which they dedicate a lot of their time and money. When it comes to Card and homosexuality, he's not just an outspoken homophobe - he is a guy with a history of directly promoting and pushing for legislation that limits gay rights. It's that part of it that some people find objectionable.
And I though it was about Endermen or Slender! Ha! Silly me!...