posted
I may be a bit biased but the author of the below referenced article seems a bit militant when others disagree with her. Some of the contradictions between her behavior and her professed beliefs make me wonder if this was a piece of satire. Salon.com article on OSCPosts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What struck me (no pun intended) was how she keyed in so much on family violence. She assumed that just because she experienced violence in her childhood (and sounds as if she has studied the issue or undergone therapy for it) that someone else (Card) must have experienced it the same way, and must be affected by it the same way, and must be in denial if he doesn't see it that way. She seemed to be digging for something that wasn't there but refused to admit the possibility that it wasn't.
I think this attitude is prevalent throughout the piece in every topic.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got the impression that she thought that Card was deep in denial if he wasn't still completely terrorized by what I would call typical amounts of hazing from an older brother.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to act as if I were speaking to her.
"You [effin] jerk, you're insulting me, and your disgusting views make me so sorry I like your book. Gay rights are so much less ridiculous than you are."
What? How is Card insulting you if you've never told him your views? An insult would be if he knew you were a lesbian and still "insulted" you. But it's not an insult because he's stating his beliefs.
"I fantasize about pressing a button that makes my space fleet blast Card into tiny fragments whose DNA will never bother me again. (After all, I am, according to him, someone who opposes "biological life.")"
Well then you aren't a Mormon, are you?
Seriously, though, Card never said that these people are any less human.
"But wasn't the whole point of "Ender's Game" that the end never justifies the means? That hurting people is never, ever right except when minutely controlled and in immediate self-defense?"
Sigh.
Her two statements contradict themselves. She says hurting people is never right except in self-defense, yet also adds that the ends never justifies the means. In Ender's Game, the self-defense of the human species was definetely justifable by destroying those that were trying to kill us (they thought). The only mistake made was that we weren't absolutely sure we couldn't communicate with the aliens, but even this mistake is faulty because if we risked the chance to find out and were wrong, we'd be wiped out.
Oh and that thing about "hurting people is never right except in immediate self-defense"....this is false. Since you've read Ender's Shadow, you must know that Bean and Poke and Achilles hurt people because they needed to survive. They killed because they had to kill, even when it wasn't in immediate self-defense.
Except Achilles; I have a strange feeling he's somehow manipulating the crew. I'll figure out how by the end of the novel.
"I think he's obfuscating. No one's that interested in figuring out why people hit people unless they've gotten hit a lot themselves."
Have you ever heard to people called writers who write about other people (sometimes fictional) and need to get inside their heads to know how they think and act? Some of them write about people who get hit, but that doesn't mean they got hit themselves.
Again, she wants Card to say that he, like the journalist herself, went through a difficult life, but Card just replies that his childhood was scary, but also confused and he later realized his mistakes.
Maybe I'm harsh, but so is this essay.
Posts: 102 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think he's obfuscating. No one's that interested in figuring out why people hit people unless they've gotten hit a lot themselves.
She's having this interview to learn more about her "hero," and yet as soon as he starts talking about his motives she doubts him because "no one" would do what he does except for her reason.
Doesn't she think OSC is special? Why should he have the same motives as everyone else?
quote:I bite back a sarcastic retort. Card's brother was basically OK because he wasn't as bad as the Nazis?
It seems she's less interested in learning than about scoring points here.
quote:But I change my tack again, still convinced we'll come to common ground.
She's so intent on finding "common ground" she won't pursue what he's saying.
quote:Or perhaps more accurately, I ask the very same question, but in a covert form so that Card will have no idea I'm really making reference to him and his homophobia.
...
What an asshole. I'm trying to praise Christianity; in fact I'm trying to be Christian as he would understand the term, and all he can see is an attack.
Does she really think she was that subtle? That Card didn't notice what she's doing? Did she read "Ender's Shadow"?
quote:I am trying so valiantly to be bigger and better than Card.
So busy trying to do that that she's being at least as hateful as she accuses him of being.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't realize it was five years old, but I did recognize the references (without following the link) as "oh, that charming article! Isn't it from a while ago?"
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I assume that there were people out there who read that article and didn't think to themselves, "Jeez, this woman's got some real issues." but I'll be danged if I know any of them. I was amazed by, as Roger said, how blatantly obvious the contradictions between her stated beliefs and her actions were. I don't get how an editor who was concerned with the quality of his publication lets this one through, but there you go.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seemed to me that the article proved out the adage that criticism says more about the critic than the one criticized.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This article smacked of unprofessionalism. It seemed to me rather like the scribbles on the stalls of a high school bathroom, complete with profanity.
Is it bad to say it made me laugh? It's the worst attempt at a Card-bashing I've ever seen. At least the folks at Ornery.org use an intelligent approach. This was just sad.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am really surprised at all of you. To defend a man who calls Vietnam and Korea "good" acts by the US because we were protecting freedom then goes on to show he agrees with communism just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes.
I've been reading a lot of his rants in his little column here on the Hattrack River web page and while I can both agree with some and disagree with others, it is very clear through those columns and articles like this that he has a very defined set of personal beliefs and values.
I respect anyone that can take a side and express their views, but only if they can do it in a sensible manner and with SOME scruples. I find a lot of what Card says to be expressed in a VERY elitist and snobbish manner. They way he attacks so many topics and people as being "stupid" amazes me.
He recently posted an article in the LA Times I belive where he shoots down Star Trek and basically calls all it's fans idiots just becuase it's not his brand of sci-fi. He did the same thing with the iPod article he just posted here, and now I am reading that he thinks employers should have the right to fire gays for no reason other than they don't deserve the same rights anyone else does?
I'm a heterosexual man that owns an iPod and does not give a crap about Star Trek or Macs, but I am still finding myself offended. The man that wrote such compassionate and entertaining novels as Speaker for the Dead turns out to be an elitist, homophobic, communistic asshole that could give two cents what anyone else in the world is about if they don't fall into his pathetic, narrow, vision of things.
Very, very sad.
Shame on you for not being more honest with yourselves and seeing this man for what he really is.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm most definitely not. On the other hand -- and Scott himself might disagree with this; he tends to throw the cold shoulder my way -- I'm not a jerk about it, either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a web forum, actually, that's usually the way conversations are held. Despite what you might infer from my post count, I'm not here every second of the day. *grin*
I don't have a personal relationship with OSC, no. But he's aware of me, although he seems to go to genuinely extraordinary lengths to avoid addressing me personally, lately. We have conversed (and argued), albeit recently in a first-person-to-third-person-omniscient sort of way. *grin*
He's a good guy with strong opinions that get stronger, less diplomatic, and less careful when he wants to rile people up. I don't condone this, mind you, but over the years I've grown to understand where he's coming from on his opinions -- even if I disagree with those premises and therefore his conclusions. In general -- although not always -- his conclusions do logically spring from his premises, which is more than you can say for most people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I regards to his 'support' of the Korean and Vietnam wars I think it comes down to the question of does an evil act with good intentions make the actor evil and does a good act with evil intentions make the actor good? In both cases I would say no, and I think that was the point that OSC was making. He said that the intention was alltruistic and that was a point in America's favor. I don't see anywhere that he says that the wars were right.
Another good example of this question is looking at FDR. An oft praised president yet he signed the Japanese Interment Act to have the Japanese population of the west coast relocated to interment camps during WWII. This act marks a dark spot in our history where we imprisoned a portion of the population because of their race. But does this mean that FDR was a bad president or an evil man? Of course not, his intentions were honorable, he signed the act in the belief that he was protecting and helping the Japanese population of the US. The overall point here is that you should judge a person's , or a country's, character by their intentions and not their actions.
I think that was the point Card was trying to get at in the interview.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alistair, if you judge by intentions, just how are you going to be condemning Hitler? As far as I can tell, he was genuinely not motivated by a desire for personal power, but for the good of the German people. Granted that blaming all the ills of the thirties on the Jews is not particular rational, if you grant that this is the way Hitler saw things, then he did have good intentions.
Stalin is a another matter, to be sure, but both Hitler and Quisling apparently really believed they were doing what was best for their respective nations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa Alistair, that's a very dangerous way to think:
"The overall point here is that you should judge a person’s, or a country's, character by their intentions and not their actions."
So should we dismiss Hitler's crimes because he thought he was doing the right thing? A person's intentions don't mean jack in the grand scheme of things. It is a person's actions that define who they are. The mindset you suggest has been the argument and excuse of tyrants and bullies for centuries.
Now back on the topic of OSC. I cannot accept your excuse for him for both the above reason and because you do not speak for him anyway. You cannot call wars against communism good then side with communist beliefs. It's hypocrisy. I can respect your opinions, but not your explination for someone else's.
Davidson,
I guess I'm more disappointed than anything. I was a huge fan of OSC in the same way I used to be a huge fan of Star Wars. I've lost respect for both Lucas and OSC now. I cannot stand intolerance nor the people that refuse to admit to it. Lucas lives in his own little world where he will accept no one's criticism for his professional mistakes. Card, from the way he expresses himself, seems to be a closed minded individual that laughs in the face of those who he disagrees with. If he's a good guy as you say, then he needs to express his rants differently so that he comes off as such. Unless of course he just doesn’t care; in which case my elitist theory becomes reinforced.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm closed minded because I have an opinion? Could you elaborate?
I am interested in your opinions on the matter but it was the way in which you expressed yourself that does not make sense. Were you being sarcastic? Patronizing? Funny?
Remember, inflections in the voice cannot be heard in typed words. You must be clear so that others understand what you mean.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I cannot stand intolerance nor the people that refuse to admit to it.
*polite cough* There's, um, something in your eye...
LOL
I'll admit there is a small amount of hypocrisy in my own words, but I am not fully dismissing Card, I am just bothered that a man so seemingly understanding in his writing could be so close minded in his views of people and the world. He was one of my favorit writers before I started to understand his values better.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am just bothered that a man so seemingly understanding in his writing could be so close minded in his views of people and the world.
Well, that's the thing. Card isn't actually close-minded. He's just stubborn and reactionary and firmly convinced that the morals and ethical constructs he believes to be grounded in his faith are in fact the best for society. And he's rather unapologetic about that.
This ticks people off, and dealing with ticked-off people (some of them quite unreasonable themselves) has made him edgy over the years, to the point that I think he's now shooting first and asking questions later; he starts out by being offensive, which I think is actually a sort of defense mechanism compounded by ennui and frustration (and which, of course, gets people all riled up and talking about him.)
I like him better when he's being reasonable and moderate and diplomatic, and he's certainly capable of doing that, too. But the simple fact is that more people show up here when he isn't.
He and I disagree on almost everything; I'm practically a libertarian (socially left and economically right), and he's an authoritarian (socially right and economically left). But I can understand why he believes the things he does. You can even get inklings of that from his essays, even the really bad ones, if you take the time and squint to avoid looking at the worst excesses of his demagoguery.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, you restate Card's opinion. Then you say people's defense of him "just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes."
Yes. You come across as very, very close-minded. First, you cannot conceive that someone with his opinions can actually be understanding. Why? Because anyone understanding would agree with you on these issues? Second, if people don't agree with your condemnation, they're likely fanboys with delusional dreams?
Close-minded seems to fit, based on your posts so far.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a class of statements that involve contradictory self-reference. They can be amusing, but they can also be deceptive.
The classic Epiminides paradox: "All Cretans are liars." This was said by Epiminides, who was from Crete. Was he lying?
"There are no absolute truths." If so, this statement is not absolutely true, so there must be some exceptions.
"Don't take advice from anyone." Since this is advice, you shouldn't take it.
"Everyone who advocates violence ought to be shot."
And, now, "I cannot stand intolerance."
--
The interviewer does something I find unusual, and fresh. She shows her reaction to everything Card says. If the article were about Card, it would be superfluous -- but it's about her. We get to see the conclusions she jumps to (after each answer).
Her article is vicious ("He yaps" rather than "He replies") and (probably unconsciously) dishonest -- using the same term "homophobe" to mean "anti-gay bigot" and "someone who does not believe in gay marriage" is not really honest -- but it sure does reveal something. Maybe what she learned in her recovery helped her be honest about her emotions. She blames others for them, but she recognizes they're hers.
Card's answers are interesting, too, because they didn't constitute a rant, like those by Bradbury, Heinlein, or deCamp. Asimov was too smooth to sound like a ranter, but was. LeGuin was too funny. But Card just didn't seem to have the hubris to rant. He just answered the questions.
[ May 19, 2005, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot call wars against communism good then side with communist beliefs. It's hypocrisy.
That's a very odd way of looking at things. We fight wars against concrete people and nations, in those examples against totalitarian regimes who were using military force to conquer others. One can easily think that opposing them is a good thing and yet hold some of what they at least claim to believe in as good ideas without being a hypocrite. Besides which, OSC's "communism" comes not from Karl Marx, but in large part from Christian doctrine.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's apparent Dag that you are impassioned by my participation in this thread.
In my experience on various forums I have watched individuals get into unnecessary flame fests because either side (or both) were angry at the other. Because you cannot bring yourself to the table in a calmer matter I'm going to have to dismiss your posts. I'm not interested in a flame war, as you seem to be baiting me into.
Blessings my friend, may God be with you.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You cannot call wars against communism good then side with communist beliefs. It's hypocrisy.
That's a very odd way of looking at things. We fight wars against concrete people and nations, in those examples against totalitarian regimes who were using military force to conquer others. One can easily think that opposing them is a good thing and yet hold some of what they at least claim to believe in as good ideas without being a hypocrite. Besides which, OSC's "communism" comes not from Karl Marx, but in large part from Christian doctrine.
You make a very good and intelligent point. I'll have to sleep on that.
Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am just bothered that a man so seemingly understanding in his writing could be so close minded in his views of people and the world.
Well, that's the thing. Card isn't actually close-minded. He's just stubborn and reactionary and firmly convinced that the morals and ethical constructs he believes to be grounded in his faith are in fact the best for society. And he's rather unapologetic about that.
This ticks people off, and dealing with ticked-off people (some of them quite unreasonable themselves) has made him edgy over the years, to the point that I think he's now shooting first and asking questions later; he starts out by being offensive, which I think is actually a sort of defense mechanism compounded by ennui and frustration (and which, of course, gets people all riled up and talking about him.)
I like him better when he's being reasonable and moderate and diplomatic, and he's certainly capable of doing that, too. But the simple fact is that more people show up here when he isn't.
Hmm, an angle I did not concider. Since you have spoken with him on occasion I'm inclined to take your word for this. More to sleep on. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM, If Dag has held off on getting into a flame war with me, I'm reasonably sure he can handle you. You needn't worry or throw sanctimonious statements at him on that account.
To make it clear, many of us here have been vocal in criticizing the content and style of many of OSC's essays. However, just because we may disagree with the way he expresses himself and what he expresses doesn't mean that we're on the side of anyone who gives a negative opinion of him. This article was pretty bad. Your posts haven't been all that great either.
It's a common experience for OSC fans to have this reaction to his opinion writing. However, it would likely benefit you if you tried to develop a more complex understanding of it, instead of throwing insults around. I actually have a more negative impression than Tom does - I think he is intentionally demogougic to enflame and mobilize his readers against all those connected with the group he sees as being determined to destroy the family - but I think I also have a much greater understanding than you do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not worried about a flame war. I skip'em, they're a waist. Been in a couple and they serve no purpose.
I did come off harsh though and if I offended anyone I am sorry. But for now I'm still Jaded over all of this. I had a deep respect for him. But much of what you all have brought up gives me some things to think about.
posted
Squick, I get the impression that he's just Fed Up. Every single one of the views or arguments that I've seen him assign to "the left" or the "liberal elite" has been presented as a serious argument by at least one commentator on some occasion. When I was in college, I saw such things every day. If I read the college paper more often during law school, I'd see it every day now, too. As an example, I've argued with people who have said something very similar to the cultural equality argument OSC mocked in the thread about the boy who was skinned.
So it's not that he's making stuff up (which I know you didn't accuse him of). It's that he's selecting the most extreme justifications for policies he opposes to refute and presenting it as a complete refutation of the policy itself. Where I think he really oversteps is in assigning those views to all his opponents. It's actually something you know I can't stand, and that I often call people on when they do it here. I probably do it more when I'm part of the group being targeted, but I've done it often enough going the other way (Jay, CStroman, and Bean Counter come quickly to mind).
But I suspect this overstepping comes from frustration, not careful planning. Remember, OSC has been the personal target of such attacks. As someone who has also been there, although on a MUCH smallers stage, I can sympathize. It took a constant effort of willpower not to respond in kind.
I tend to think it's also counterproductive if your intent is to change the minds of people who disagree with you. But it can be very, very satisfying.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, It's difficult for me, knwoing what I know about persuasive writing, and knowing that OSC knows it too to believe that he is unaware of what he is doing.
From what I can see (and this is obviously very provisional) OSC really believs that there's this Snidley Whiplash moustache wearing group of people bent on destroying the family and he's set himself up to oppose them in any way he can.
I get that he's frustrated and seeing him interact on Hatrack, he comes off a kind of insecure too, and that no doubt feeds into a lot of this, but he's a smart guy and he's knows a lot about this stuff. I have real problems seeing him as not knowing what he's doing. He's acting like Grego, but he wrote Grego. I think that he knows that he's playing Grego.
Then again, I tend to have a less charitable view of his writing than you do, possibly because of our different communication styles, possibly because of our personal biases, and likely because he seems to enjoy throwing false and venemous attacks my way.
---
I wonder what happened to Chad. He actually turned himself around, but then he disappeared. In my darker moments, I fear he might have returned to Hatrack and to trolling under another name.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's difficult for me, knwoing what I know about persuasive writing, and knowing that OSC knows it too to believe that he is unaware of what he is doing.
That's one of the main reasons I think he's writing from emotion, because his style in many of his op-eds is not persuasive. Nor does it really provide ammunition to people who already agree with him, which is one of the useful things you can get by preaching to the choir.
Obviously we're both operating on scanty information here - I can't prove I'm right by any stretch. But I've seen the signs before in myself and others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had a bunch here, but I think the timing is wrong. Let me just say that I find his stuff too patterned and it uses too many of the tools of demogougery to good effect for me to believe that he writing mostly from an emotional reaction.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the use of those tools happens because he's writing from emotion - writing that's instinctual rather than his usual carefully considered prose. He's got enough innate skill that I think this is what would come out if he doesn't consciously check his emotions on these topics.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I am really surprised at all of you. To defend a man who calls Vietnam and Korea "good" acts by the US because we were protecting freedom then goes on to show he agrees with communism just smacks of fanboys and the delusional dreams they carry of their heroes.
I know. Heaven forbid we should defend him for any reason whatsoever just because he has different beliefs on some issues. Or that any of us could possibly agree with him of our own accord.
Don't leap to the immediate conclusion that we all are cow-eyed fanatics. We may enjoy Card's writings, but that doesn't make us his disciples.
..Although statements like the ones in your above post will raise the hackles of many of the posters here. Perhaps you could word your posts slightly less offensively? Then these things don't turn into firefights as easily. I think you have some interesting ideas, and hope to see you around here more often.
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was jumping the gun a bit. I came in here half cocked with a legit rant that I expressed in an unfair manner.
I expected a fanboy attack. That's the normal reaction to any criticism on most forums, so I was too aggressive in stating my initial opinions. In short, I just typed, I didn't plan my thoughts out in advance like I should have.
I don't think of Card as an A-hole or any of you (in this thread at least) as being fanboys.
I can say at this time though that I strongly disagree with what he believes based upon the way he expresses it. I agree with the above statement that he knows the art of writing too well to know what he is doing when he’s writing his views out for the whole world to see.
This all started for me with that LA Times article. I found it as a link in the general discussion area of a wargame forum I frequent. Most of the people in that thread (it was about Trek’s failings and successes) got pretty pissed at how self-righteous it came off. No one seemed to care about his opinion on Trek, all they were mad at was how he said it. These are mostly pretty intelligent people mind you. It wasn’t like I was in the Doom forums debating with a bunch of rude kids. Even people who liked Card’s work seemed mad about it.
After that, I began to think back to the articles I read on Hatrack and began to realize this was not a one time deal for Card, but a pattern of behavior. This upset me because I held him in such high regard as an author. I read his books and essays on writing as well as his novels, and often find my style mimicking his I like it so much. But as I started to see what he had to say and how he had to say it I began to get upset that I was relating to what I perceived as such a bitter and closed-minded person.
It’s not hard to see he is pretty stubborn in his views, and that’s okay. However, I’m a bird of a different feather in that I always try to open my mind to new possibilities no matter how out of line they may be with my beliefs. There are limits to that of course, but I am generally an open person.
I think it just saddens me. In the past few years many of the people I held in high regard for this reason or that have shown themselves to be different people than I thought. Oh well, I can still sit on it a while. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In the past few years many of the people I held in high regard for this reason or that have shown themselves to be different people than I thought."
This is why you should never hold people in high regard.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
People will always disappoint you. I don't think that means you shouldn't hold people in high regard, you just shouldn't be suprised when they screw up in some way. They are merely human. I'm sure there is something you can still find to respect in them.
But then, I've always been a "cup is half full" kind of girl. Drives my husband crazy sometimes. But he really appreciates that I see him that way as well.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Isn't it from a while ago?"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
