This is topic Orson Scott Card has closed mind. in forum Discussions About Orson Scott Card at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001924

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Has anybody ever realized how all of OSC's heroes follow pretty closely to his own belief system?

All of Orson Scott Cards heroes are religious in some way shape or form.

Even Ender was a catholic by the end of children for the mind and that seems to me to be quite contradictory to when we saw him before.

All of Orson Scott Card heroes value marriage from a very young Age. Peter, Petra, Wang-mu, Miro.
Its not very realistic unless you're a mormon.
Petra was a rebel. She is still very young in Shadow puppets (17?) and nothing really happened to change her value system. She would of course believe in love of which she had a great deal for bean, but I highly doubt marriage would have ben welcome. I know from experiance.

I'm guessing that most of the people on this site are teenagers so you can probably all agree that you're not thinking about marriage. I'm not saying that love doesn't exist as a teenager because I know first hand it does, but merriage is not an important goal no matter how moral or mature you are.

Its a shame that he cannot branch out and make people of differant value systems heroes.

Don't get me wrong, I love his books, he is my favourite author, but its just food for thought.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Ugh, me caveman. The topic was supposed to be Orson Scott Card has a closed mind.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*laugh* Actually, Ender is clearly a Catholic in name only -- and OSC is about as non-Catholic as you can get while remaining a conservative Christian.

It's certainly true that OSC doesn't generally write characters that disdain or are completely disinterested in marriage; even though your own experience is obviously somewhat limited to the Ender Saga, I'll help you out and mention that MOST of the heroes of his ongoing series eventually get hitched. I suspect, though, that this isn't evidence of quite as "closed" a mind as you'd think; you may as well say that most fantasy authors have closed minds, since most of their novels tend to recurringly feature people who use swords.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
There's a popular saying about parachutes being like the mind, it only works when it's open. But looking realistically at parachutes, if they were stored open they'd get shredded and they can't be open when you are jumping out of the plane or you might get hung up and sucked into the engines. Nothing can be open all the time.

And anyway, there's "Lovelock". It was a collaborative effort so I don't know whose idea was what, but it is Card and there's all kinds of open behavior going on. What about all the books I haven't read, like Songmaster and Wyrms? Let's see, there aren't tons of sequels to those... I wonder why. I'm sure they are good books, but it's *possible* people don't become ardently devoted to them because they lack moral bedrock. What do you all think?
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I think that not every book needs a sequel. Wyrms and Songmaster are complete stories on their own. And I am "ardently devoted" to both of them. Other than Speaker they are my favorite OSC books.

Edit to add:

How on earth can you make a statement about their lack of moral bedrock when you've never read them?!?

[ June 25, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
 
I guess I'm having a tough time with the premise - not precisely stated - that seems to be if you have characters that consistently have beliefs in some higher power, and some basic set of standards of behavior following from that, you must be close-minded.

Does that make authors who consistently portray characters and future cultures as atheistic/humanistic (in the quasi-religious sense) openminded?

How is one more openminded than the other? Maybe I'm extrapolating too much into this. I apologize if this is the case.
 

---

Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
 
Laurenz0:

quote:

---

I'm not saying that love doesn't exist as a teenager because I know first hand it does, but merriage is not an important goal no matter how moral or mature you are.

---

quote:

---

OSC is about as non-Catholic as you can get while remaining a conservative Christian.

---

quote:

---

you have characters that consistently have beliefs in some higher power, and some basic set of standards of behavior following from that, you must be close-minded.

Does that make authors who consistently portray characters and future cultures as atheistic/humanistic (in the quasi-religious sense) openminded?

---

quote:

---

i dont think is has anything to do wiht the open mindedness of the authors...its just what they want to portray

---

quote:

---

Bear in mind that almost all of the geniuses in the Enderverse, including and perhaps especially Petra and Bean, have always been portrayed as far more mature than their years; I'd go so far as to say unrealistically so. This is only a continuation of something that has been in the story all along.

Also, you might want to reconsider speaking for all teenagers when you say that marriage couldn't possibly be considered important at this age.

---

Exactly what I was about to say, only to find I'd been beaten to it!
 

---

Posted by tabithecat (Member # 5228) on :
 
having just finished Wyrms not more than 10 minutes ago I can say that yes I felt there were some religous overtones but it worked and I see no reason to mess with it. I mean the main characters name is Patience. her father Peace and her friend/advisor/protector is Angel. after a brief eye roll I settled in and never looked back. I don't see a closed mind in that just working with what you know or feel, how can that wrong if there is a happy ending & a strong moral lesson (let's all just get along)
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 

quote:

---

Also, you might want to reconsider speaking for all teenagers when you say that marriage couldn't possibly be considered important at thsi age.

---

quote:

---

I'm guessing that most of the people on this site are teenagers so you can probably all agree that you're not thinking about marriage.

---

quote:

---

MOST teenagers do not get married when they are teens.

---

So... most teenagers get married when they AREN'T teenagers?

quote:

---

I am a person who believes in a love but not nessiarly merriage and I know a lot of people feel the same way. Its just a shame that people who have a belief system like that can't really be considered heroes.

---

quote:

---

I'm guessing that most of the people on this site are teenagers so you can probably all agree that you're not thinking about marriage. I'm not saying that love doesn't exist as a teenager because I know first hand it does, but merriage is not an important goal no matter how moral or mature you are.

---

Just because most people don't get married when they're teenagers doesn't mean that it isn't an important goal for them. I'm not married (I'm 21) but I sure thought about it while I was a teenager, and I know most of my friends did as well. I don't feel qualified to speak for everyone but I'd say that many people who consider marriage important didn't just start thinking about it when they turned 20.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
So tongue twisted, you and your girlfriend seriously considered marriage?
Of course its thought about, but its very rarely done or even seriously talked about.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Nick, I'm curious now. Where is the community you come from, and what religion are the majority of you? because I know that that number is astromical compared to here (calgary, alberta, canada). Marrying is at such an early age is sort of frowned upon, but don't get me wrong. I think its a great thing, but i just know that i've only heard of one couple getting married so soon. Maybe I live in a box.
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
(note to LaurenzO: ttat is a GIRL and likes BOYS )

Yes we talked about it. But my point wasn't that teenagers GET married, more that it can still be an important goal to them even if they don't actually get married before they are 20.
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
Should've just edited my previous post but I clicked on new post and am too lazy to go back, lol. Um, I wouldn't say that getting married as a teenager is "very rare" either. It's not as common as getting married after you turn 20, of course, but roughly 40% of the people I know that are married (but not related to me) got married before they were 20.

Course, I live in New Zealand. I've no idea how old people generally are when they get married in the USA (or wherever you're from).

EDIT to add: actually, thinking about it, most of the people I know who are married AND related to me were married before they were 20. My parents and grandparents certainly were. I'm not saying whether it's a good or bad thing, but it's not frowned upon here.

[ June 25, 2003, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: tonguetied&twisted ]
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
(Note to self, add accent and account for gender of the female presuasion when reading tonguetwistedandtied comments)

Well
I retract my statements and recognize the fact I didn't know much about how things worked in new zealand or other places for that matter. People here (and as far as I know, in the U.S. too) usually get married in their mid twenties to thirties and while marriage is a goal of mine, its not a goal I wish to accomplish anytime soon.

I guess I just figured that Orson scott card would be bias since he is a mormon.
Sorry for assuming you were male
And i'm from south western Canada.

[ June 25, 2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
 

---

Posted by Jexxster (Member # 5293) on :
 
Hmm, based on your last post, could it be that you have a bias towards OSC's belief system that has colored your opinion of his works?

Just a thought. Biases and closed mindedness often go both ways.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Absoloutly, but i'm not biased against mormons, I just know they marry early. And, I retracted my statements about him being biased on the merriage thing, just a bit unrealistic.

[ June 25, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 

quote:

---

Nick, I'm curious now. Where is the community you come from, and what religion are the majority of you? because I know that that number is astromical compared to here (calgary, alberta, canada). Marrying is at such an early age is sort of frowned upon, but don't get me wrong. I think its a great thing, but i just know that i've only heard of one couple getting married so soon. Maybe I live in a box.

---

Whoa whoa whoa buddy, I didn't say I was planning on marrying anytime soon, I said my girlfriend and I have been talking about it a lot lately, and we're talking about marrying in the future. Definitely not before I'm 22 thought.
 

---

Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
 
*Irony Alert*
*Reverse Prejudice Alert*
 

---

Posted by Jexxster (Member # 5293) on :
 

quote:

---

I just know they marry early.

---

Gotcha. I have a very well thought out theory as to why that is. If you are ever interested email me and I would be happy to share what I have found out about that. It might make things a bit more clear.
 

---

Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
 
Jexxter, in your well thought out theory, that I have no idea what that contains, have you checked it with LDS members? It actually doesn't take a theory to understand why.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Well jexxter, I'd love to email you. But it says either you or the administrators blocked your email adress. So, yeah. I am really interested in those thories. You can email me at laurenz0_perry@hotmail.com
 

---

Posted by Jexxster (Member # 5293) on :
 
Hehe, being one helps me formulate a cogent theory.

The reason I mention it is there is an underlying principle that folks miss out on when the jump on the "Mormon's marry young" bandwagon. There is a lot more to it than the idea that lots of people have that it happens because (speaking from a third person perspective here) they are told they should marry early.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 

quote:

---

Whoa whoa whoa buddy, I didn't say I was planning on marrying anytime soon, I said my girlfriend and I have been talking about it a lot lately, and we're talking about marrying in the future. Definitely not before I'm 22 thought.

---

quote:

---

All of Orson Scott Card heroes value marriage from a very young Age.

---

Just to clarify. I originally took your post to mean that teenagers didn't VALUE marriage or think about it as an important goal. My point was that people who are planning to get married eventually are likely to have it as a goal while they are teenagers, regardless of whether they actually marry before they turn 20 or not. This is probably irrelevant to the discussion, but ah well.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
yes i can deffinately see how you misunderstood me. In fact, I don't see how anybody couldn't misunderstand me. No I meant that they all seem to say "I want to merry this person."
Which seems to me to be very unrealistic, because I or any of my friends in their teen years would honestly think something like that. Goes to show you how much upbringing affects things like that.
 

---

Posted by Jexxster (Member # 5293) on :
 
Laurenz0, just emailed you.
 

---

Posted by Jettboy (Member # 534) on :
 
How are we defining "teenager" really? A student in high school or below age 20? Honestly, Mormons don't marry THAT young, except for maybe women where half marry at about age 19.

[ June 25, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Jettboy ]
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
I personally am glad I'm not married yet. I know a lot of people older than me who are glad they're not too. But I also know people that were married before they were 20 and wouldn't have it any other way. I guess it depends on when you meet the right person. I don't think it has that much to do with age actually.
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
Out of interest LaurenzO, how old are you and are you a girl or a guy? If you don't mind my asking!
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
A bit about me:
i'm 15, i'm male and I can't spell.

[ June 26, 2003, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Okay, there are several pieces floating around here, and they have some pretty clear responses.

1. Scott is Mormon. Yes. He's been very open about that, without being pushy about it. He tends to make some Mormons uncomfortable -- he's not a fundamentalist Mormon, although he is strictly faithful afaict.

2. Scott is biased towards his beliefs. Yes. Everyone is biased towards their beliefs. Scott is honest about his biases where they occur.

3. The characters in the Ender's books are unrealistic. Perhaps. This is, after all, fiction. However, you need to keep the premise of the books in mind -- these characters were selected from the billions of people on Earth, comprising the top dozen or so minds of their generation. They are not going to see things the same way that average or normal people would -- they have had neither average nor normal childhoods, something explored openly in the Shadow series, but clearly noted in the first chapters of Ender's Game.

4. Scott's characters favor marriage, for the most part. Yes. Most people in the world do. Something you need to understand about Scott's view of the world is that one of the most important things humans create are communities. This is based in his understanding of Mormon beliefs, but his view is not universal within Mormonism. In communities, individuals have responsibility toward other members of the community -- it is a reciprocal relationship. When people behave irresponsibly, it not only harms them -- it harms the community. Families are very important sub-communities, and marriage is integral to the building of families. I recognize that not everyone shares this belief, as is their right, but many do, and Scott clearly does. You will not see him describing healthy societies that do not value marriage and family. One of the tell-tales of the sickness of the Earth of Ender and Bean is the lack of respect for marriages and families in that world, leading to the horror of Bean's youth in Rotterdam.

5. Petra is interested in marriage at a younger age than average. Yes, for obvious reasons. Bean is going to die. Bean is someone she loves and respects for many reasons -- including that he is the greatest mind of his time, with the greatest heart of his time as well. She knows that she, herself, is one of the greatest minds of the world, and that their children, as a result of this, could preserve those genetic advantages for later generations. This puts the urgency into the situation that pushes them to marry young -- so Bean will have a chance to be a father to his children, to their benefit and to his.

Now, personally, even though I am a Mormon also, I do not recommend that people marry young, because I have done it, and I have seen it done, and the results are frequently bad. I tend to think 30 is a good age to get married, but find 25 to freak other Mormons out less when I promote it. In this case, I can't challenge the decision to marry young because of the circumstances.

Scott's characters are rarely all that "normal" -- they tend to be heroic, intentionally. If you want heroic characters who believe as you believe, then write them. But consider exactly how fair it is to accuse Scott of being closed minded simply for having different beliefs and not hiding them? Open mindedness would seem to require considering if he has a valid point in what he's saying/doing, rather than requiring him to toe the line of the party you have chosen.

[ June 26, 2003, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: BlainN ]
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
BlainN, I agree with most if not all of your argument. I kinda got somewhat off topic with the whole marriage thing, lol.

Are you new or is it just a new user name? If you ARE new, welcome to Hatrack!

Helpful hint: people tend to call Orson Scott Card, "Card" as opposed to "Scott".

Wow. I can be helpful. Amazing!! Well, I'm amazed...
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Thanks for the welcome. I've not been on this system much for a long time, but I was on Hatrack back when dinosaurs walked the Earth and AOL was cool. I've been calling him "Scott" since then, and I'm not likely to call him much of anything else unless he asks me to (although I have been known to use OSC, but it's easier to say/type "Scott").

For more info on Scott's heroes, Michael Collings' book In the Image of God is the book on the subject. Scott says that Michael finds things in his writing that he doesn't know are there when he writes them (but they are).

Take care,
Blain
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
*blush* Sorry. It took me a couple of seconds to register who you were talking about when you said Scott, that's the only reason I mentioned it. (That just makes me sound stupid... *sigh*)

(note to self: helpful hints aren't always helpful)

Welcome back, then.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
It's not a problem. I hadn't realized he wasn't commonly referred to by "Scott," so that was helpful.

And thanks for the welcome again. I think I'm going to like it around here.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 

quote:

---

5. Petra is interested in marriage at a younger age than average. Yes, for obvious reasons. Bean is going to die. Bean is someone she loves and respects for many reasons -- including that he is the greatest mind of his time, with the greatest heart of his time as well. She knows that she, herself, is one of the greatest minds of the world, and that their children, as a result of this, could preserve those genetic advantages for later generations. This puts the urgency into the situation that pushes them to marry young -- so Bean will have a chance to be a father to his children, to their benefit and to his

---

While I agree with you that it makes sense for Petra to get married, chances are it would not have been welcome. I know several Rebels and even dated one. The "system" is something they try to put down as much as they can. And marriage as a teenager would be nothing short of laughable. I saw nothing really happen to Petra that would have made her change her mind.

My guess is OSC couldn't have found a hero out of her if she hadn't wanted to get married.

[ June 26, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
This is something I have observed in all of the stories I have read by him.
Most of the characters marry, even if the marriages seem a little too illogical and sudden to me, take Ender and Novina (sp) for example. I hate that pairing so much. To me it seemed like they barely knew each other and suddenly they are getting married.
Most of his stable characters get married. Most of the unstable characters stay single.
Mainly what I dislike is how he portrays gay people. There were several reasons why I could not finish the latest Bean book.
First of all, I hate when a story is driven by folks doing something they know is not very wise. The case of trusting that guy not to steal their embryos for example.
But the main reason is that speech the doctor made. What is up with that? Why should he, who is gay, have to get married to a woman if he does not swing that way? That only leads to misery for the person who is gay, all of the kids and the person they marry!
More later.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
I lost the book, so for all I know you could be right, But I don't think think he is gay. Just not interested in sex. Maybe I missed something. Perhaps you should check your sources. I'm kinda curious now.

[ June 26, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Laurenz0 ]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Blaine,

I'd like to comment on your age of 30. I, myself, don't think that is a good age. There are two reasons. One, if you are a woman there are several ages at which fertility statistically reduces. The first of these ages is around 27, and then in your early 30s, maybe even around 30. Statistically, fertility goes down even more at those ages if no children have been born by those times.

My second reason is psychological. There is a kind of 'firming' in your identity in your late 20s that makes it more difficult, rather than easier, to mesh together.

So yeah, 25 is actually better than 30.

The age at which we were ready to marry is different for everyone.

[ June 26, 2003, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
He was definitely gay. He said something about his "proclivities". That whole web of life thing annoyed me so much for some reason I am trying to figure out.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Whoa whoa whoa, who said Bean was gay?
 

---

Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
 


Last time I checked, the series ended with Bean thoroughly enjoying his marriage to Petra.
 

---

Posted by Laurenz0 (Member # 5336) on :
 
Hm... I have to borrow that book and read that part.
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
LaurenZ, I agree with maybe one half of your first post. A lot of that is true for the Ender series. But BlainN's (welcome!) point #2 is spot on. These kids are unique. They endured difficult childhoods, specifically Enders' tragic sibling dynamics and Bean's homelessness. They were the top minds of their generation who were expected to save Humanity as children, the heaviest ethical burden imagineable. And they went through Battle school
Any one of these is enough to transform people or make them unstable.
Geniuses make their own rules regarding sex and relationships, as Heinlein pointed out 30+ years ago and confirmed by many sociosexual researchers.

quote:

---

Most of his stable characters get married. Most of the unstable characters stay single Synesthesia

---

Simply reflects reality. Are you looking for an unstable mate? Or would you want your son or daughter to marry someone unstable?

As far as the whole marriage discussion, have you read Treasure Box? If that book doesn't convince you to stay single nothing will. Madeline takes deceit to an entirely new level. Plus, the ending scared me more than almost any horror fiction I can think of. I don't want to read it again but will sadly be compelled to because it's so well written. Possibly OSC's most overlooked book.

quote:

---

Amka--One, if you are a woman there are several ages at which fertility statistically reduces. The first of these ages is around 27, and then in your early 30s, maybe even around 30. Statistically, fertility goes down even more at those ages if no children have been born by those times.

---

One could make a case for that, particuarly if you want a large family. However, children born to mothers over 30 tend to be more intelligent. And at least in the US,older mothers are better able to care for the child.
But I agree with you're second psych point, which makes a conflict. ::sigh::
Morbo's weirdest stat: sub-Saharan Africa has both the highest fertility and highest infertility of any region on Earth of comparable size.
tt&t, killer alias

[ June 27, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
I think this is hilarious. Remember when Heinlein got criticized by feminists because all of his female characters - tough, smart, and world-class talented in their firelds, every one - all wanted to get married and have babies?

I think you're falling into the "bubble" trap. The people in your immediate social bubble (which includes the people in the media you watch) all think the same way, so it becomes easy to think that "most" people do.

An awful lot of people thnk about marriage, even when very young. An awful lot of people marry in their teens (although according to the Census, that number is decreasing).
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Do Mormons actually recommend marrying early, or do they just recommend abstinence before marriage? American society pushes people to have sex while they are young, hence if Mormons are to have sex they have to marry young. I know that was my problem. Not such a problem. I'm 33 now and still married (to the same guy)

I don't think we should consider the Shadow series since Bean is chronologically a minor when he and Petra marry, I believe. I could be wrong. The philotic web timeline ends with Achilles in Russia. Bean and Petra are a total aberration.

Look at Enchantment and Alvin Maker, though. Ivan is late 20's. Alvin is possibly younger but the woman he is marrying is late 20's or later.

[ June 26, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 

quote:

---

Chris
I think this is hilarious. Remember when Heinlein got criticized by feminists because all of his female characters - tough, smart, and world-class talented in their firelds, every one - all wanted to get married and have babies?

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whoa whoa whoa, who said Bean was gay?

---

Not Bean. That doctor.

[ June 26, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Spoilers?

Volescu is apparently gay but decided to get married to a woman who already had children because he wanted to pass on cultural heritage. I knew man who wasn't gay but believed ardently in zero population. He became a teacher, I think because he felt he would still be passing on a part of himself that way. If I ever write a book I'll probably dedicate it too him.

[ June 26, 2003, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Laurenzo -- Knowing people who identify themselves as Rebels doesn't give you the Rosetta Stone for understanding every person who might have a rebellious streak and how they think. It looks to me that you are projecting yourself and your experiences on those of the character, finding the character doing things you don't think you'd do, and rejecting the characterization because of that. That's certainly your right. However, there are more people in the world than you will ever meet, and it is unwise to decide how all of them will behave ahead of time, sight unseen.

For example, Petra has, by the time Shadow Puppets begins, studied advanced math, physics, history and military strategy. She has functioned in a highly competetive environment with the best minds of her generation and risen to the top. She is perhaps the third best mind in her environment -- the highest performing female. She has led troops into mock battle and real battle. She has made decisions that have caused many deaths, she has seen death face-to-face, and faced the risk of it herself on an ongoing basis. She is not your garden-variety nonconformist. She has seen the value of following the rules and knowing when to break them.

She isn't choosing marriage because someone has told her to get married. She is choosing marriage for her own reasons. She is rebelling against the evil she has seen which threatens her entire world -- the evil that would consolidate the military power she and her friends represent and use them to rule the world for their own personal gains.

That she's not putting on a leather jacket, piercing her eye-brow, getting a tattoo and giving a cop the finger doesn't mean she's no longer a rebel. She's a rebel with a cause. She knows who and what she's fighting.

Again, I do not personally recommend marriage to pre-30s as a rule. I resist marriage after 25 less, but don't recommend it. However, many people have married as teens and had it work. We can share distrust of the practice carried out in our current culture, but looking down your nose at it is to show contempt prior to investigation, which isn't wise.

Scott's the one who formed her as a character. Her choices come out of his understanding of who she is, and certainly his beliefs impact her choices. It is always thus for an author. Once again, I challenge the notion that he *must* require his characters to say thing you agree with and do things you agree with or he is accused of having a closed mind. I'm afraid, that sounds like a pot and a kettle. Scott has doubtless considered your point of view longer than you have, and I'm not seeing much sign that you are considering his.

Syn -- If you want to go with 25 instead of 30, I'd prefer that to 19. If I say 30, and people settle for 25, that works for me. If I say 25, they'll settle for 22, and that's not as good for me. As it is, mentioning being single until 25 in a Mormon environment can bring similar response as accusing the Prophet of cross-dressing. And then, when I recommend long courtships and long engagements, people freak.

Rebel, rebel....

More response later, but I've gotta run.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
*still trying to figure out why that web of life thing bothered me*
For example, in the book before Shadow Puppets Peter's mother gave a speech that simply irratated me.
I couldn't help thinking that that attitude contributes to a lot of problems, this desire to just continue the norm, the status quo, without question, even if there are problems engrained in it.
An example would be a family with a history of abuse continuing to have children, to continue this chain without question, without realizing that there is something wrong...
Or maybe it just bothers me when people have children because they feel they have to and they don't think of the consiquences. They just do it because everyone else is doing it, they don't take into consideration whether or not they have issues, they just blindly have kid after kid passing on whatever was passed to them without thought.
I hate that so much. Then you get a great deal of broken people wandering around like wraiths in the world.
Or maybe {spoiler} I agreed with Bean not wanting to have children with his disease. I could understand how he didn't want them to have to suffer the way he did and believed that he had every right not to have children if he didn't want to. I didn't care about the web of life. It's not just about continuing life. There has to be a quality of life, like only having children when you know you are mentally, financially and physically able to take care of them.
To do otherwise is cruel...
What do you think of that?
 

---

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
 
I agree. Preach on, Syn.!

[ June 27, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
With Petra and Bean, there is also the fact that they were forced, by genetics and circumstance, to mature much, much faster than the average teen. Maturity, to me, implies understanding of mortality and acceptance of responsibility, and that can lead to thoughts of carrying on life.
 

---

Posted by tonguetied&twisted (Member # 5159) on :
 
Morbo: Thanks! Right back at ya. I see we haven't managed to figure out who you are yet. Sneaky.

Chris Bridges:

quote:

---

With Petra and Bean, there is also the fact that they were forced, by genetics and circumstance, to mature much, much faster than the average teen. Maturity, to me, implies understanding of mortality and acceptance of responsibility, and that can lead to thoughts of carrying on life.

---

I agree. I don't think there is any particular age that can be said to be the right age to get married. I think it's all to do with when each individual is ready. Card's characters are generally more mature than us at a similar age.

Nb: by "us" I don't claim to speak for the entire human race...
 

---

Posted by Pascal (Member # 773) on :
 
pooka, was the teacher a member of the voluntary human extinction movement ? I love these guys. Good thing they'll all die out sooner or later.
 

---

Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
 
I can't completely agree with waiting to have children. There are arguments for and against but how many of us will ever be completely mentally healthy, financially, etc? Having children can help to face some things that we would not face otherwise. As well as being married would do the same. The idea is that relationships help us to grow, they do not hinder us. To put off these relationships is to slow our own personal growth because we can never really know ourselves completely until we see ourselves as part of the relationships around us.
I, too, will have to reread the book.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Blaine, I wasn't looking down my nose at it before investigation. I already pointed out why I think purposefully waiting until 30 is unwise. In fact, I really don't recommend putting an age on it. There is no hard an fast rule for everyone about when a good time is to marry.

For you, obviously, it is older. However, I'd also like to point out that some of the experience you gained in that marriage gone bad contributed to your maturity and readiness for marriage. Who is to say that if you got married again and it succeeded that it would not have succeeded if you hadn't of learned from your mistakes in the first marriage? (Don't know if you divorced in your first marriage, got married again, or what, just throwing out speculation.)

I got married when I was barely 20 years old. I've been married for twelve years now, and it is better than I ever imagined marriage would be, and I come from a good family. You just can't know it until you experience it, I guess. My husband, however, is 5 years older than me, and we both know he wouldn't have been ready at 20.

I have a cousin who was married when she was 17 (been married now for 7 or 8 years), and one when she was 18 (been married 18 years), and they are both happily married. I have a sister who got married last year at 18, and we've all been freaked out, but they are still very much in love despite financial difficulties and even a community that is working against them (They are deaf. The deaf community is small and isolated, and where they live it is fairly amoral, so they are moving.)

And yet I know people who have been 30 and not been mature enough to get married. Unfortunately, unless something remarkable happens, I doubt they ever could pull off a successful marriage.
 

---

Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
 
Ok, I just want to go back to the topic at hand for a minute, and then I'll be done.

OSC doesn't have a closed mind, he just writes with a specific purpose. Calling OSC close-minded for your reasons is like calling a writer of an instruction manual to a garage door opener close-minded because he didn't include other ways to put it together besides the specified way.

A close-minded reader mistakes the author for his own fallbacks all the time.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Amka -- my "contempt prior to investigation" comment was referring to Laurenzo's blanket rejection of marriage prior to 20. It wasn't in regard to your comment in any fashion.

I recognize marriages to pre-30s, pre-25s and even pre-20s can still work. That's great when it works. Mine didn't. The stats on second marriages are far worse than the stats on first marriages. Since mine broke up, I've had one relationship that was headed for marriage that was unhealthy.

And I'm not about passing laws or stopping people from marrying prior to 30. I'm not condemning or criticizing those who have married prior to 30. I'm holding out a different idea about making marriage decisions that validates the notion that one can survive being single and 25 without being a pariah, that one can know someone for a year or two before marrying them, that one can learn how to be independent before deciding to be married. There's this attitude that the only thing that's important is to "find someone," and there's a lot more to it than that.

So I'm not insisting that anybody do what I'm suggesting. I'm just offering my idea as something to think about in the midst of all the pressure to marry young and quick that's present in my community.

Take care,
Blain
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
To be "mormon" and unmarried after 25 implies, to people, that you think there are things in life more important than sex. Kind of ironic, then, that people look down on it. Okay, I'm saying I'm smarter than people who look down on it. ::goes to time out::

There's also the aspect that a person staying single implicitly criticizes everyone who married young, you know, like with homeschoolers. Of course, a larger percent of homeschoolers are doing it by choice than LDS folks staying single.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Pooka -- Yes, in fact it does. And that's a difficult thing in as sexually obsessed a culture as Mormon culture is (or American popular culture, for that matter). To say that people can live without sex and have good lives is very challenging to those who don't believe such a thing is possible.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

An example would be a family with a history of abuse continuing to have children, to continue this chain without question, without realizing that there is something wrong...

---

I dunno . . . my family was dysfunctional and abusive, but I'm still glad they had me . . .

*shrug*

Carry on.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mormon culture is obsessed with sex?

News to me. . .
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
I wouldn't presume to make sweeping generalities about Mormon culture, but I do believe that Christian culture in general is obsessed with sex.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Scott -- Then consider yourself news-ed. Mormon culture is obsessed with sex. First, we're obsessed with the "we don't have sex outside of marriage" thing (although quite a few Mormons do, in fact, have sex outside of marriage). Put into a greater culture which is obsessed with sex (I've seen sex used to sell everything short of diapers and incontinance supplies), and we have a lot of sexually frustrated young people.

So we see lots of them getting married at young ages (discussed earlier) so they can get to "legitimized" sex, or getting involved in sex outside of marriage and leaving the Church for a few years or more. We see lots (and lots) of problems with pornography and masturbation in the Church for men and women, married and unmarried. It seems that Pres. Hinckley can't get within six feet of a microphone without talking about the dangers of pornography -- he wouldn't be spending that much time on the matter if it weren't a problem, and it's not just a problem for the youth.

And then there's the matter of family size, the spacing in time of pregnancies and birth control. The Church has shifted its policy position on that matter remarkably -- it now acknowledges that sex is not just about procreation, and that the choice of family size, spacing of pregnancies and birth control are choices we are to make for ourselves, and that nobody should speculate on someone else's choices in that regard. But the expectation remains that one should have as many children as possible (regardless of circumstance) as quickly as possible ("don't postpone having a family") and we end up with families that are pretty huge messes. Mind you, not all or most families are messes who have lots of children or have them right away, but I don't think anybody reading this will have a hard time thinking of one that is.

For the most part, we don't talk about those things, though. We just talk about the wickedness of the world and worldliness, the dangers of pornography (in a very general sense), and the importance of dressing modestly and avoiding R-rated movies. And then we shake our heads when some girl in the ward turns up pregnant.

So, yeah, Mormon culture is obsessed with sex.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I guess it depends on what is meant by "obsessed." I'd like to venture the hypothesis that it would mean, in the case of "Mormons" (By which I mean members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) that it would mean the efforts to alleviate the problem have become the problem itself.

I think there are individual cases where this is a problem. People who didn't know there was porn on the internet hear about it from a talk warning against it. But there are also people who didn't think of what they were viewing as porn, and the same talk caused them to repent of that.

It's an interesting question of free will. Can the prophet really receive guidance on what to say, knowing exactly how it will affect everyone who hears? That's not even taking into account each individual's quantum decision to enter the forum where they were to hear said inspired talk.

On the subject of family size, the advice goes back and forth between not alienating potential converts and not being absorbed by them. The church as a whole rides this harmonic, and I think the individuals within it do as well.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Sometimes the more people talk against sex and issues that are related to sex the more they are obsessed. Especially when people talk against sex.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
I'm going to try to push this thing a bit back toward topic from where I'd like to go. We'll see if I can hold me in check.

I don't think the proposed solutions need to contribute to the problem for the Mormon culture to be obsessed with sex. Just note that I'm discussing the Mormon culture, rather than Mormon doctrine or the Church. The Mormon culture is a sloppy subset of the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- not every member participates in it, and not everyone who participates in it is a member of the Church.

I think the obsession probably dates back to the days of plural marriage, which wasn't (and was) about sex (depending on who you are talking about). That duplicity has trickled up until now.

Personally, I think a good solution is to put the subject on the table and have some relatively frank conversations about what is really going on, what its consequences are, and what can realistically be done about it. That won't make everything all better, but it will be a place where more good can be done IMO than in hiding and pretending.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
That is sort of true of the whole of American culture. It's better to be honest and straight forward about sex, masturbation, homosexuality rather than hiding behind some sort of doctrine as a lense to look through when it comes to such a personal and powerful force as sex.
An embarassment over sex in my opinion leads to more problems.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
But my definition of obsession on anything is that efforts to address it only makes matters worse. cf. How not to be a bigot

Granted, we do not have the data to determine whether "mormon cultures" obsession with sex is such. Especially given the amorphous definition of Mormon culture. But I'm willing to discuss it.

But I would like to point out that research has not unequivocally shown Members of LDS to have a higher rate of mental illness, including OCD, than American population in general.

If your definition of mormon culture is that group of people who seem weird as a consequence of being LDS, than it may be that a lot of *them* have OCD concentered around sex issues. Not to disinclude myself from your definition.
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Pooka -- That's an interesting definition. I'll think about that aspect. However, at least up until this moment, I don't require that aspect in my definition. To me, obsession is simply an unhealthy fixation. I would ask that you review my comments with that in mind.

Also, my discussion is one of opinion and perspective. My points will either be self-evident for you on first or subsequent exposures, or they won't. It doesn't hurt my feelings if we disagree.

I'm not aware that being LDS made anybody weird, although I am aware of some common Mormon experiences that can help train an otherwise normal person on how to be weird (like whoever wrote the word "biffy" on the girls-camp list).

My discussion is not one of mental illness -- one can be obsessive without being OCD. The former can be a matter of behavior, while the latter is a brain disorder.
 

---

Posted by WedgeAntilles (Member # 5154) on :
 
How does one get from OSC has a closed mind to the subset of Mormon culture being obsessed with sex?
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 

quote:

---

Absoloutly, but i'm not biased against mormons, I just know they marry early. And, I retracted my statements about him being biased on the merriage thing, just a bit unrealistic.

---

quote:

---

Pooka -- Yes, in fact it does. And that's a difficult thing in as sexually obsessed a culture as Mormon culture is

---

quote:

---

An embarassment over sex in my opinion leads to more problems.

---

Are Mormons embarrassed about sex? WHERE do you guys get this stuff?
 

---

Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
 
have you ever slept with a mormon?

*hightails it back to the sandbox*
 

---

Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
 
Every night for the last 22 years.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
:sweeps up trail left by flish:

Not sure what the "biffy" comment is about. Does "biffy" have some colloquial meaning I'm not aware of? One aspect of Mormon culture I will not deny is a tendency toward odd names.

I was thinking that Victorian society and 50's American suburbia are always accused of a hidden fixation with sex (along with so called Mormon culture).
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I wasn't even just talking about Mormons. I'm thinking of a more larger cultural structure.
 

---

Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
 
I've been sleeping with one for over 30 years, but my point is comparison. I think the question is relative?
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Utah -- Yeah, I do say things like this, and it's based on observation that you're free to agree with or disagree with. I've explained elsewhere some of what I base that comment on. Do you still have those questions?

I think it's cool when folks wait until they are older to get married. I didn't. Others who were a bit older than I got married the same year (folks we were in YSAs with, six or seven couples I can think of, mostly in the temple, mostly one RM in the couple) of which two were still together 10 years later (and still are). Waiting doesn't guarantee success any more than not waiting guarantees failure. However, nearly everybody knows more at 25 or 30 than they do at 19 or 20, and that additional experience and understanding can help avoid bad decisions about who and when to marry, as well as how to treat someone you are married to.

Around here, most of the relatively mainstream Mormon young people marry earlier than 23 or 25. Girls marry at 17-21, and guys marry at 21-22 for the most part (the RMs, that is -- some marry younger and don't go). Have you ever seen 19 year old girls sing "I don't want to go on a mission at 21 or 22..."? I have.

Wedge -- it came from my agreeing with Laurenzo that marrying young isn't generally a good idea, while disagreeing with his specific criticism of Bean and Petra marrying young as unrealistic. From there, we got to discussing pressure on/from young Mormons to marry young, one of the driving factors of which is getting to legitimized sex. HTH

Take care,
Blain
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
Blaine,

You say that out of 6-7 couples, out of which after 10 years only 2 have succeeded. That is far below even the average rate of first marriage failure, let alone the rate of failure for LDS temple marriages. This is based only on that information which you have told me. I acknowledge that it may simply be coincidence.

However, based on this I think that you are probably looking at this from the perspective of a smaller cultural subset within Mormonism. The one within which was a particular guy I met once. He claimed that the line of behavior between two unmarried people was set so strictly so as to prevent slipping up and actually having intercourse, but if you had enough self control, you cold go past that line. He so missed the point of what chastity really was, and he definately was obsessed with sex.

I know many LDS people who are very careful about who they choose, and don't marry the first person that hormones urges them to have sex with once they are 'of age' to marry. These people are not obsessed with sex, they are obsessed with a spouse who will be their companion and a good parent for their children.

If one gets married quick because they are hot for someone and want to do it with them, that is definately a recipe for difficulties that could spell failure in the marriage.

Having or not having sex before marriage does have an impact on your marriage. It is about your ability to control yourself and keep your covenants. Being faithful to the promises you made with God if you are religious (when you got baptized, for instance) sets a precedent for being faithful to your spouse. Keeping yourself virginal for your future spouse has an aspect of sacrifice even before you met your spouse that leads towards a greater tendancy to sacrifice for your spouse when you know them and are married to them.

And for those who aren't religious, don't tell me that there aren't the questions of 'who went before me? Do I measure up?' There is that slight insecurity that there is a rival out there who your spouse experienced sex with, even though they'd never met you. It may be as mild as a curiosity, or as damaging as a deep jealousy. It may be nothing, unless you meet them on the street while walking with your spouse and imagine that when they look at your spouse they are remembering those times. And while it is true that mature people can deal with it, if you don't have to deal with that at all, you simply have one less problem.

But beyond all that reasoning, chastity isn't about being obsessed with not having sex. It is about actually being pure of heart, mind, and actions. It goes beyond moral behavior and cultural norms and making sure you look good in front of other Mormons. You keep your thoughts and heart clean to recieve guidance and inspiration from the Spirit, to feel the love of God and the grace of Christ. And having that quality will certainly be a huge plus in a marriage.

I'm sorry that this has degenerated into LDS culture and theology, but I couldn't let Blaine's comment go unanswered.
 

---

Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
 
p.s. the people in the fifties weren't embarrassed about sex. they had tons of it. whay do you think they call it the baby boom? they just refrained from the public exhibition of it. I guess if you want to call that embarrassment, feel free.
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
I have to disagree with you about that. The baby boom happened as a result of men who were of an age to start a family being drafted away all throughout WW2 encouraging. When WW2 was over, they and those who were now of age to begin a family all started at the same time.

But in both of the fifties culture and the victorian era there existed a kind of body embarrassment. We were more than animals, and we had science to improve ourselves. Sex was dirty and animalistic. It was only for procreation for those deeply imbedded in that culture. Breastfeeding was looked down on and replaced by the more scientifically correct 'formula' that they fed infants. This body embarrassment was definately sucked into Mormon culture, which is also fascinated by scientific development, especially that which corraborates LDS culture and belief. What a relief, we didn't have to use those immodest breasts to feed our children anymore. Science, the study of God's creation, has solved that problem.

Young girls who accidently became pregnant were hidden and forced to give their babies up. Their pain is definately part of what began the movement that made abortion legal at the expense of educating unmarried girls about the benefits of carrying the pregnancy to term and giving it up voluntarily.

I would say that there is certainly an LDS subset culture that is obsessed with sex. It is a different sort of obsession than in the fifties, and it doesn't represent all Mormons. If someone were to ask me what President Gordon B. Hinkley can't stop himself from saying everytime he gets within 6 feet of a microphone, my first response wouldn't have been pornography. It would have been tolerance, fellowship, and retaining members. I think he talks about that far more than the dangers of pornography.

[ July 01, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Let's look at this another way. Have you ever read a book (or more likely an unpublished short story) written by someone who was trying to reach outside the domain of what they are familiar with? There aren't many books of this sort because it's not very easy to do convincingly. Why are most of John Grisham's books about lawyers? Why did Dostoevsky write about wretched souls transformed by love? Why are Stephen King's books about whatever it is they are about?

Then there's the question, why can't everyone write fantasy/sci-fi equally well? OSC apparently reads a lot of mysteries (of the murder/detective sort) but does not write them. This is puzzling. But very often the things you find enjoyable are because you don't know about them.
 

---

Posted by VenomsValentine (Member # 5359) on :
 
What boring arguments! Sorry, I'm new here and probably stepping on toes, but who cares if OSC has his characters get married all the time? It's his prerogative as author. When you all get to be famous authors, you can make your characters do whatever you want. And btw, authors generally create characters based on what they know and live, otherwise it doesn't feel "true"-like some sort of false skin you can't wait to shed. And what is the point of any fiction, speculative or not but to share one's view of the world with others. And just as an aside, there is really no such thing as fundamentalist mormons-either you are or you're not active. It's not Judaism where you can be orthodox or not. Sillies. Go back and read the rest of the Ender series when you get a few more years under your belt.
 

---

Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
 

quote:

---

there is really no such thing as fundamentalist mormons - either you are active or you're not active. It's not Judaism where you can be orthodox or not. Sillies.

---

*ponders*

VV,

Ok, I'll accept the silly part of it. But, I'm a little lost on this active vs. not active thing (aside: and are you talking about sex again, or is this something different).

Non-orthodox jews are non-active?

*flish*
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Amka -- I don't think there's a need to limit this to any sort of subculture. Not everybody in the culture needs to have the obsession for the culture itself to be obsessed. Cultures aren't that monolithic, even one that values conformity as much as Mormon culture does.

The couples I'm referring to had nothing in particular in common, other than being approximately the same age, all Mormon, and living in the same stake. Some were married in the temple, some were not. Some were RMs, and some were not (both in and out of the temple). All were at least relatively active. But we didn't all hang out together or listen to the same music -- we didn't even all go to the same activities. Some were lifers, some were converts. All of which was true of those who made it too.

Pornography problems are not restricted to any subculture either -- they cut right across the demographics. These little boxes we're using to have this conversation on make it incredibly easy to reach with virtual anonymity. Ask your bishop or SP if this is a problem in your area, and they'll almost certainly tell you that it is (although they can't mention any names).

I can't help but think the purpose of your "smaller subculture" comment was to marginalize my experience and discredit my perspective. I am not trying to shove anybody into the labels I'm using -- I'm placing the labels on things that I see. From my time in dealing with Mormons going through divorce (I moderate three mail lists for Mormons who have been or are going through divorce), I can tell you that the problems of rushing into marriage quickly is neither localized to where I live, nor is it all that rare. I have granted that many do not do this, but that doesn't invalidate my point that many do -- too many do.

I agree that chastity isn't about being obsessed with not having sex. Your point there is well made. I will say that not everybody who's not having sex yet is doing chastity as you describe. Perhaps you've never seen people who stop coming to church between 16 and 20, but I have -- it's not even rare. I don't find them getting into doctrinal disagreements with their teachers -- I find them unwilling to accept Church guidelines for their behavior, and much of that is about sex (some what about drugs, I'll grant). If we could discuss sex with the youth in a way that acknowledges that some of them may choose to have sex before marriage, and that some of them may have done so already, and give them some information about what they can do in those instances, and that coming to Church while they aren't behaving perfectly is better than not coming to Church, we might be better able to respond to their experiences and give them a reason to keep the influence of the Church in their lives.

Before I drop the topic, there are a couple of online resources I strongly recommend for people who are struggling with addictive or compulsive behaviors, including sexual behaviors.

I'm sorry this has gotten off-topic, but I wouldn't say it's degenerated. I don't consider either of our points of view to be degenerate. I wasn't intending to take this this far down the track, but folks have had things to say about my comments, and that's how it goes, I guess.

Val -- of course there are fundamentalist Mormons. When you run into them, they'll tell you they're fundamentalist Mormons. They may or may not be members of record of the LDS Church. I have a thing about fundamentalism of any kind, personally.

Now, if we want to take this discussion to some other thread or forum, that's fine with me, but I think we've said what there is to say here.
 

---

Posted by filetted (Member # 5048) on :
 
werd.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"And while it is true that mature people can deal with it, if you don't have to deal with that at all, you simply have one less problem."

This isn't ENTIRELY true. I'm Christy's first and only lover, and I've got to admit that I sometimes wonder if she's going to start wondering what sex with other people is like some time down the road. *laugh* So I've only replaced one immature concern with another.
 

---

Posted by VenomsValentine (Member # 5359) on :
 
Sorry-I just scanned the posts and missed the sex stuff entirely. But I wholeheartedly agree with Amka on that issue. I just don't like people refering to LDS members as "fundamentalist" or radical or whatever. I realize that some people may claim to be members while holding allegiances to apostate groups-like polygamists or other radical groups,or that the "cultural mormons" in utah might walk as close to the line as possible while still maintaining membership. However, out here in the missionfield (not utah for you non-mos) I guess it's a little different. We still marry early if we can, but it's not because we want to have sex as soon as possible, we just consider family to be the source of our greatest joys. And let me tell you, life's moments just don't get any better than spending time with your family, and the LDS church teaches that these joys are what eternity is about. So of course we can't wait to start a family of our own, and the more kids the better for most of us. I think the whole issue of orthodox/fundamentalists mormons comes from people who want to do bad things and still consider them members of the Lord's church. "Oh yes", they sneer. "I'm a member of the church. Just not one of those fundamentalists. I am an individual and I don't let anyone tell me to do anything I don't agree with". Well guess what? If you aren't following the teachings of the church, you don't truly belong to it. That's what active and inactive refer to, by the way. An active member follows the commandments, holds a temple recommend, goes to his meetings and fulfills his callings. I guess he's what you call a "fundamentalist". Then there are those who disobey the commandments, or claim some intellectual right to disregard the teachings of the Lord's chosen seer, or get involved with polygamists or other groups. I wouldn't even really consider these people members at all, except for the fact that their names are still on church records. Understand? Sorry, I might not be very comprehensible, I keep getting interrupted by my one-year old and I lose my train of thought. But I would be glad to discuss mo culture with anyone. I'm especially interested in the experiences of people living in utah, since my experience has led me to feel somewhat more linearly on the subject. Thanks for your time. VV
 

---

Posted by BlainN (Member # 5340) on :
 
Val -- Fundamentalist Mormons are generally those who hold to more extreme versions of the basic Mormon beliefs than the average bear. They do things like wear old-style garments, practice polygamy, deny the priesthood to blacks, and criticize the Salt Lake church as being apostate and worldly.

Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon.

Unorthodox Mormons are more apt to have a piercing or a tattoo, drink caffienated sodas, wear colored shirts on Sunday, maybe have hair longer than missionary length and facial hair, use colorful language, etc. They aren't necessarily sinning more than their Orthodox brethren, but they may be more likely to talk about it.

Orthodox Mormons tend to worry that Unorthodox Mormons are drifting into apostacy. Unorthodox Mormons tend to think that Orthodox Mormons need to loosen up and be more real.

Fundamentalist Mormons consider them all apostate.

Now, if you want to, we can talk more about Mormon types (including "so-called" intellectuals), start a thread about it in Nauvoo and we'll have a good time.

HTH,
Blain
 

---

Posted by VenomsValentine (Member # 5359) on :
 
okey dokey...will do. And thanks for the info.
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 
It's not just that Card's characters favor marriage, it's that he personally values it very, very highly as (if we are to take his character's words as his own) the highest of human endeavors:

pg. 98 of Shadow Puppets has the scientist Anton speak, in very cliched and out-dated language (which sounds like the 1930s or 50s more than a few centuries hence) in condemnation of his "fleeting" homosexual (the language is so vague it could be some other desire he's discussing, but it follows the form of the closet very closely) impulses and of finding a wife and raising kids late in life, even if they're not his own, as his ultimate comfort.

As the original poster identified, Petra seems almost driven to reproduce at her young age (of course all the Battle School kids are by definition precocious).

Also interesting is the way Card repeats certain patters, at least in the Ender series. Anton's marriage to a woman who already has kids is like Ender's marriage to Novinha with her ready-made family. And like Valentine's willingness to step out of immortality for Jakt.

Card writes of the unknowable otherness of woman (easy to do since most of his lead characters are adolescent males) in the most cliched and time-lost language, as if men and women really are Mars and Venus, opposites attracting because of their essential mystery. Which makes it about more than reproduction, as does his father figures willingness to raise children not their own.

And then there are all the chaste couples he arranges, over and over again:

Miro and Ela
Quara and Grego
Ender and Valentine
Peter and Valentine
Bean and Petra
Virlomi and Suriyawong
Achilles and Petra
Marcao and Novinha
Peter and Wang-mu (who, like Petra and Bean, played at being lovers until they fell in love)

There's something about that precipice between the platonic and the sexual in hetero relationships that intrigues Card greatly, at the very least.

Reading Anton's retro speech out of Shadow Puppets was a shock to me, a case of the author's voice breaking through the fiction and disrupting the flow to deliver a message that sounded an awful lot like homophobia. I have to wonder which is more vital, more important to the author.

 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 
Reading back through this thread further (I chose to revive it because the title was exactly what I was thinking this morning), I see that others are as troubled by Anton's speech as I was in Shadow Puppets.

I think Synaesthesia comes closest to getting at some of my own concerns, but I'll also steal from BlainN and post what I think are the salient points.

1. It's Anton, not Volescu who we're talking about Volescu is the next closest thing to evil in the Bean stories after Achilles; he's the bad scientist who took Anton's ideas and bred babies for organ donation and genius just because he could, who then killed them all (save Bean) when he was about to be caught. He is Bean's distant relative, and AFICR no reference was made to his sexuality, thank goddess.

2. I liked Anton, why does he have to be an idiot now? Anton's sad dilemma, a genius disallowed to think his most vital thoughts, was a touching one, sensitively portrayed by Card in Shadow. Sister Carlotta's visit with him was wonderfully evocative and tragic, one of the most memorable parts of that book. Now we return to him again, Bean meets the man who is pretty much the god that called him into life, and he gets a lecture on reproducing like a bunny?

3. There's nothing wrong with marriage in itself Or, at least, I'd say it's a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. And I really do want Petra and Bean to get together and reproduce, I think it's all the more important since his life might be so short. BUT, I also understand why he doesn't want to, and I find it contradictory that Card varies marriage so much he sees no difference between having your own kids or adopting, step-parenting, etc. Since, for example, gay couples (we "friends" who have such "fleeting" desires that they can't even be mentioned by name) can also do non-genetic parenting (and even genetic, with willing donors).


 

---

Posted by Geoffrey Card (Member # 1062) on :
 
[tongue in cheek]

Aw he's just talking a lot about reproduction because he thinks it'll get him grandkids faster
 

---

Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
 
You know, it's been awhile since I've read the shadow books (well, not THAT long, they're pretty recent ) but I still hear people complaining about all the "speeches" that Card has his characters say "as a way to express his personal views" on various subjects such as marriage etc. But...why is it a bad thing that some of his characters seem to share some of his beliefs? To my mind (admittedly not the most logical of places), all the "speeches" I remember characters giving were used to drive the story forward, not to "indoctrinate" people to OSC's viewpoint. The thing is, we who love Card have learned to recognize his philosophy when we see it, and so when a character in his fiction shares his views, apparently some of us will jump on that and say that OSC is just using that character as a mouthpiece. But...should Card only write about characters that are utterly unlike him? I would think he'd be allowed to write about any kind of person he'd want to, INCLUDING people he might have a lot in common with. Wasn't Ender's mom a mormon? Is it any surprise that some of her views will probably overlap with Card's? I think OSC has spent a lot of time writing about people he violently DISagrees with (I'm thinking Josif from Songmaster now) and I never got the feeling that he was using those characters as a mouthpiece, because I ALREADY KNEW what his positions are on the issues he raises. And you know what? I loved Josif. I thought he was a great character. I loved Ender's mom, I thought she was a great character as well. The fact that she happens to share some of her views with OSC doesn't bother me, because...well, why should it? LOTS of people in real life probably have beliefs that are very similar to Card's. Why should he only have stories revolve around people he disagrees with?

Boy, I hope that all that made sense. It seems to in MY head...

(By the way, in case it sounds that way, I wasn't posting this as an "attack" on anyone who disagrees with me. Just my two cents, for what it's worth. )

And Geoff, LOL.

[ August 13, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
 

---

Posted by Ryan_Larsen (Member # 5530) on :
 
Hm, interesting.

There's an old saying- "Don't judge the past by the present." In Science-Fiction this saying could just as easily apply- "Don't judge the future by the present."

Who knows what the culture has swayed to in Card's books? They're deffinately not in the year 2003. Marriage was valued in the 1950's, why couldn't it sway back to that way in the future?
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 
It's not really the fact that Card's characters speak in his voice that troubles me; I mean, when does fiction ever do anything else but represent the author's perspective?

It's that, if these really are Card's views, do I retain any interest in reading his works? It's a case of a great storyteller telling stories I don't want to hear.

And, in the case of Dr. Anton, whose speech troubled me much more than Mama Wiggin's, it's the way his rhetoric of inner, lasting peace matches the rhetoric of modern-day oppression. He might as well be an argument for the Ex-Gay movement, and I find that affinity highly distasteful.
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 
And as far as future history, sure, we have no idea how conservative or liberal the future will be (though the standing SF model is Gene Roddenberry's utopia of individuality I think); but even if marriage becomes centrally valued again (after a period where all religions were apparently discounted due to governmental prerogatives), does it follow that homosexuality will become something that can't even be mentioned? Did the Dr. have a memory device implanted to correct that prediliction as well?
 

---

Posted by Ryan_Larsen (Member # 5530) on :
 
I suppose that we can read from what we read what we wish to read. If you know what I mean. Sometimes we as human-beings, and especially authors, tend to read into things too much. I do it all the time, so don't think I'm pointing fingers at only you.

In other words, I understand your point, but as for myself I'll let Card write as he wishes to write about whatever topics he wishes to write about. Who knows what he actually meant by what he wrote? I know, for myself, sometimes people take rather a deep meaning of something I meant to be rather shallow, if you catch my drift.

Maybe you should ask Card himself?

[ August 13, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: Ryan_Larsen ]
 

---

Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
 
At the moment I'm in the middle of _Manifold:Space_, having recently finished _Manifold:Time_. Baxter, so far as I can tell, is as different from Card as it gets. But his characters say and think inane things about marriage and kids too. "This is all we have, Malenfant. You and me. We've no future or past, because we don't have kids, nobody who might carry on the story. Just bubbles, adrift in time. Here, shimmering, gone."

I find this kind of thing tedious, but I hardly notice it in Card.
 

---

Posted by TwosonPaula (Member # 5511) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm not saying that love doesn't exist as a teenager because I know first hand it does, but merriage is not an important goal no matter how moral or mature you are.

---

I'd have to say that this may be true for guys, but a lot of girls start dreaming about getting married when they're little, and that continues on. Not that all teen girls want to marry right away, but often, when girls "fall in love" in high school, they think of the guy as "the guy I'm going to marry".
Also, morality DOES play a huge part in whether or not teens get married. As does maturity. I met my husband when we were 16 and we started dating right away. From the very beginning of our relationship, we knew that we were both looking for a person to share a life with, and marriage was a huge part of our plans right away. We saw "dating" as very immature, unless a mate is what you were looking for, and we scoffed at those kinds of "teen-age" relationships. We got married two years later and have been very happy together every since. (We are twenty-one.) The Bible says that if a man is beginning to be "inappropriate" with a woman, that they should get married before her virtue is ruined. That helped us decide when to get married, when we realized that being virtuous was getting tougher and that we might make a huge mistake. But we have never felt that we got married too early...it was a pain waiting as long as we did. (And not just because we couldn't have sex.)
Truthfully, our road has been tough because of our early marriage, but that has served to draw us closer, not tear us apart. That's because age doesn't have much to do with staying married. It's very much about choosing an appropriate partner from the beginning, and keeping your commitment to each other.
Anyway, maturity and morality served to bring two teens together in holy matrimony.
 

---

Posted by Petra'sDaughter (Member # 5539) on :
 
"Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon."

Admittedly written tongue in cheek, but hardly fits any people I know. Living smack dab in the middle of grand ole' SLC I can honestly say I have met anyone who qualifies as your definition of orthodox. Maybe it's different where you are from.

Interesting thoughts on the whole "Card is anti-gay" topic--I'm curious why the desire for family (Anton's speech) is considered anti-gay...Many gay people adopt or have invitro or (for men) have a surrogate carry a baby containing one partner's genetic material. Anton's solution, (a sexless marriage with a woman), is perhaps not the most ideal solution for someone with his "proclivities" but his motives for doing so are hardly unique to him as a gay man. Also, the main character in Songmaster has a homosexual experience (can't remember his name) albeit with a negative ending because of some kind of implant (I think, it's been a long time...)

Oh, and the whole "closed-minded" thang---have to say that would strike a nerve with me because I am trying to figure out why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded. Someone explain, please. I think our society is definately way too "open minded" for my children's safety, how about yours? (Legal simulated child porn, anyone?) Why is God an ugly word in school while f*** etc. are perfectly permissable? String me up and paint me as a conservative...I'ma waitin fer my tar and feathers.
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

Interesting thoughts on the whole "Card is anti-gay" topic--I'm curious why the desire for family (Anton's speech) is considered anti-gay...Many gay people adopt or have invitro or (for men) have a surrogate carry a baby containing one partner's genetic material.

---

quote:

---

Anton's solution, (a sexless marriage with a woman), is perhaps not the most ideal solution for someone with his "proclivities" but his motives for doing so are hardly unique to him as a gay man.

---

quote:

---

Also, the main character in Songmaster has a homosexual experience (can't remember his name) albeit with a negative ending because of some kind of implant (I think, it's been a long time...)

---

quote:

---

Oh, and the whole "closed-minded" thang---have to say that would strike a nerve with me because I am trying to figure out why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded. Someone explain, please. I think our society is definately way too "open minded" for my children's safety, how about yours? (Legal simulated child porn, anyone?) Why is God an ugly word in school while f*** etc. are perfectly permissable? String me up and paint me as a conservative...I'ma waitin fer my tar and feathers.

---

And you might get them, elsewhere. Let me turn your question around; what exactly is open-minded and moral about encouraging gay people to masquerade as straights, because of an author's belief that men and women are made one way, and no other?


 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
Turning the question around only proves you have no answer for it.

I call it the "Grease" paradox. If the Greaser becomes a preppie, he's a sell-out and denying himself, but if a preppie becomes a Greaser, she's opening her mind, and freeing herself from shackles.

Ooh-ooh-ooohh!
 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
Oh, and it's hi-larious that people can come and voice thier opinions about the close-mindedness of Orson Scott Card, and his intolerance for other people's ideas and beliefs, thus getting thier own contrary ideas and beliefs broadcast to all of cyberspace on a website that he is paying for and still keep a straight face.

(Sure, threads get deleted here once in a while, but those are generally not for ideas--those are for personal attacks.)
 

---

Posted by Cactus Jack (Member # 2671) on :
 
Oh, and to answer your question, and the previous question, and my paradox (because I do think they were worth answering) once we cubbyhole ourselves, we DO cut ourselves off from other options. This does not make us closed minded. If that were the case, the only way to be open minded would be to never make any decisions about anything.

What makes us open-minded is having chosen.

Thus, making it seem like a Greaser is only denying himself and making himself miserable when he tries being a preppie IS a celebration of closed-mindedness. So is implying that a man with homosexual inclinations who wants to try to be a father the old-fasioned way is engaging in a "masquerade."

Now--and here's the key--voicing those beliefs once you form them does not make you close minded either. Especially when you've given free forum to anybody who wants to disagree with you.
 

---

Posted by SusieQ (Member # 5558) on :
 
I just want to throw in my two cents.

Personally, I think it's silly to say that someone has a closed mind for writing about something he believes in. I see no correlation between these two ideas.

Secondly, before anyone asks- I am not religious. I believe there is some sort of higher power, but I don't know what it is and I do not follow any structured religion.

I believe that marriage is much more than a sheet of paper- it is making two people into one. Under Canadian and US law, a married couple can be considered one person, legally. You can verify this for yourselves (this is why a husband/wife cannot be forced to testify against their spouse).

I don't think the high modern marriage failure rate has anything to do with the sexual revolution- I think it has to do with lack of commitment. How many couples break apart because they suddenly find they have nothing in common? If you really work hard at a relationship, you can make it work, but only if you want to and both of you are really willing to try. Communication is the biggest steppingstone and causes the most problems.

I'm 21 and I've been with my husband since I was sixteen. We've been married for almost three years. And we live in Canada.

Everyone is ready for marriage at a different age. It has much more to do with maturity and commitment than anything else. I don't agree with marrying so that you can have sex, which is why I think premarital sex is okay within reason. Marriage should be a melding of souls, two best friends sharing their lives together.

And if Orson Scott Card wants his characters to get married, why shouldn't he? Everyone longs for a soulmate- "no man is an island". Some just find them earlier than others.
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 
I see I've touched a nerve. Three responses to one post?

let's see:

1) I didn't choose the thread title, I'm a late entrant to this months-long discussion; but I did join in because I agreed with some of the comments.

2) I am personally not pro-marriage, but I don't frown on those who are. That's not the part of the debate I care about. Get married, get married young, do what makes you happy. So should Bean, if that's his choice. It's the particular argument that Anton advances that bothers me.

3) Card paying for people to vent their opinions; that's laudable, but you can't imagine that he doesn't see some sort of benefit despite what ANYONE says. For all the altruism, it's also self-promotion. I'd expect no less of any professional publication than to air dissenting letters.

4) I completely reject the notion that open-mindedness means open to anything. Some things ARE better than others, and Card is PICKING one side of the debate when he writes a character like Anton. I pick the other side, and find Anton offensive. I don't have to accept everything in the world just because I want to be accepted myself. I just draw my line somewhere else.

5) And I've never said Card's not free to make whatever choices he wants. And to write about them. I've only said I hated reading it, and it made me put the book down. I don't know if I'll ever pick it up, or in fact read Card again. I know, "gee, big loss." And that's fine. Plenty of other authors, and plenty of other readers. All I'm sharing is my disappointment in this one book, out of a series I had up until that point been enjoying immensely (I read all volumes in the past month).

Maybe I'll add more upon re-reading; haven't really got the hang of quoting on this board yet.

Oh, and the answer to this:

quote:

---

why immoralilty, profanity, pornography and hedonism are considered liberating and open minded, while "morals" and self control are closed minded.

---

quote:

---

My guess is OSC couldn't have found a hero out of her if she hadn't wanted to get married.

---

Petra's desire to get married has very little to do with her heroism. She is a hero character because of her participation in the bugger war. Her desire to get married is a part of her life experience but it is not what qualifies her as a hero. As someone already mentioned, if it wasn't for the knowledge that Bean will die young most likely she wouldn't be considering marrying young. The factor of an early death prompts her to have an early marriage. I am having trouble understanding how you directly corrolate her marrying Bean at a young age with her heroism.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
In all my reading, I didn't feel that Bean's early death was the only driving force for their marriage, despite the fact that Card constantly portrayed that in the book.

The one point that so far only Cornekopia has mentioned (in my reading back through the posts) is that Bean & Petra, remember, are EXTREMELY gifted people. By that, I mean that their mental age was so far beyond their physical/chronological age in asychrony, that it was a normal desire for them to want to marry. They never THOUGHT of themselves as young, or as kids or teenagers. Mentally they are adults, probably well past many of us in understanding. I personally never thought about their physical age when reading of their marriage.

I have viewed most battle-school grads as mental adults -- obviously they are. So what's the beef about them getting married? You have more trouble believing they would think about marriage than you have believing they could run a whole army or country? Almost everyone in their entire peer group was either another adult, or another battleschool grad.
 

---

Posted by wieczorek (Member # 5565) on :
 
I wouldn't say that OSC has a closed mind at all. I can't even imagine...okay, I mislead even myself. I can imagine WHY someone might say that, but I think that the person behind such a statement is truly the one with a closed mind. I quite often say of myself that I suffer from closed mindedness, but in reality I mean that I quite often act on impulse.
The reason why many of OSC's books may be along the same topic could be, for we know, that he truly enjoys this genre and idea (which I am quite happy to find that he does, seeing as he is my favorite author). Because someone does something in the manner as something they have previously done, does not necessarily mean that it reads the same way at all. All of OSC's books have a unique twist that makes them enjoyable to read. OSC has an open mind.

Also, in Shadow of the Hegemon, when Petra and Bean get back to Ribeirao Preto, don't you recall the moment when Petra was walking with Bean somewhere outside when Petra said that she was going to have children. Then Bean replied that he had no intention of ever having children. In response, Petra said that she expected this from him, because women give birth, not men. Then they had a conversation that I wouldn't really call an argument, but Bean ended it by saying that he could never have children and THEN told Petra about his disease. Until then, Petra didn't know about his disease that included an early death. So, it is false to say that if Petra hadn't known about Bean's disease, the two never would have married.
The true reason why they got married is that Petra and Bean wanted to do invetro fertilization and the process required that the two be married. So, Petra Arkanian became Petra Delphiki, and then they tried to switch Anton's Key.

[ August 21, 2003, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: wieczorek ]
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
Okay BlainN, one question: you wrote:

___________________________________________
Orthodox is a bit different. It's not about being more active or more faithful -- it's about saying and doing the things that are considered correct. Stuff like avoiding colas, not (talking about) using birth control, not playing with face cards, wearing white-shirts, eating your green jello with carrot grated in it, etc. Mormon Culture is more important to an orthodox Mormon than an unorthodox Mormon.
_________________________________________________

I'm not a Mormon, but I did attend services there for awhile while "investigating" it (decided not to join) -- and I thought I had heard of everything they believe, but not this Jello thing -- can you explain the thinking of that to me please?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The Jello thing is a cultural joke.
 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

It might be obvious to you, but it's certainly not obvious to me, so can you humor us poor idiots and give us the answer?

---

Not that I think it will really clarify anything for anyone, but here goes:

Answer: immorality, hedonism, profanity and pornography are not considered liberating, freedom of expression is. Morality and self-control are not considered close-minded, but telling others the best way to live is.

Her question is analogous to asking a husband "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"


 

---

Posted by cornekopia (Member # 5528) on :
 

quote:

---

The true reason why they got married is that Petra and Bean wanted to do invetro fertilization and the process required that the two be married. So, Petra Arkanian became Petra Delphiki, and then they tried to switch Anton's Key.

---

And what do you think of Anton's advice to them before they did. Was it sound? Is the only satisfaction in life to be found in reproduction?

 

---