Since I was 13, I have had entire shelves committed to Orson Scott Card books. I can't get enough of his magnificent writing style. I grew up with the Ender, Alvin, and Homecoming series. As a kid, I was always appreciative of the stories, and rarely thought an awful lot about the intrinsic messages that Card was trying to convey. But now, at the age of 20, I've started grappling, for the first time really, with the fact that Card is a very opinionated person, and that much of what he believes in comes across rather obviously in his books.
What do you guys think? I always thought that a good writer merely tells the story, and lets the reader come to his own conclusions? But reading OSC's many books, it is pretty clear that he comes from a very specific set of ideals. My problem is that I love his books, but disagree with a LOT of his political views which he associates with his writing (I've read his article on World Watch at least 10 times). Does this hinder my appreciation of his works? Am I wrong to dissasociate the stories from the strong moral undercurrents that he gives them, like I always did (unkowingly) as a kid?
I guess my big question is: how much can I read OSC without regarding his position on politics? Is there some aspect of his writing that I can appreciate apart from all of these strong moral undertones?
I appreciate any input you guys might have.
[ February 21, 2005, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Danny ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Danny, I think someone might end up starting a support group for what you're experiencing We get someone in here at least once every few weeks with the exact same problem.
Card's views, and his means of expressing them, have evolved over time, and I don't think that you need to go back and start reading into his older works undercurrents and hidden meanings that you've derived from his recent political writings.
The reaction we get here most often, actually, is people saying, "How could the same man who wrote these insightful stories that show real empathy for so many characters with different backgrounds and struggles, whose moral universes so align with mine, be the same man who wrote this essay that I abhor?" My answer to that is, believe the stories, not the essays. It is easy for a political writer to become carried away, overstate his position, and offend people. It is much harder to write a good story that you don't believe in. If you love the stories, then I think you are seeing a huge part of who Card truly is, even if you wouldn't get along with him in a political discussion.
Card's positions in politics seem, to me, to be more the result of his personal history and his struggles with people reacting to his work than the source of some revelatory insight into his deepest character. If you read an essay and come away thinking he is a bigot or anything equally despicable, then you have misjudged him. It's not a hard mistake to make, but it is a mistake.
Keep enjoying the fiction. It's worth it. Don't let the author ruin it for you Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I also don't see the problem with disagreeing with the politics while enjoying the works the artist has created.
If I only ever enjoyed novels or songs or movies or television episodes that were created by people I completely agreed with, I'd have a very limited world indeed. Why should the one affect the other?
I'm not saying I disagree with OSC's political views - I actually have no idea. Unlike probably everyone else here, I've never read a single one of his essays. I'm probably just too lazy to go to the trouble, because honestly, I have no good reason for not. Oh, wait, it could be because I'm not American and don't care for American politics in general. Yeah, let's go with that one. Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
I understand where you're coming from, Danny!
When I read an OSC novel I sense a man of incredible compassion. He is one of the few writers that can move me to tears; I sobbed like a baby at the end of Ender's Game and Sarah, but his real life views sometimes are greatly opposed to my own.
His politics, his beliefs about gays, and various things he has written in his columns are very different from many of my core beliefs. Initially that was a hard pill to swallow. Without sounding like a stalker, when I relate to an author I like to think I could be friends with that person - that if we met we would hit it off. It's a silly fantasy, but I know I'm not alone.
I still think the man is a hell of a writer. I still respect him a lot, and respect several of his opinions and beliefs, but I have learned to separate the books from the man. I've gotten beyond the disappointment of envisioned him one way, only to find he differed from that image.
I can only smile at the irony contained in the fact that the ultimate truth (for me) Ender's Game is the reason that I cannot support a war that the author of said novel does support.
When you look at it, there is a great lesson there. A man can think differently than I do and still write something that's so pure and beautiful that I am moved. It makes me pause a little longer before judging someone as being heartless just because we see the world a little differently.
I hate OSC's stance on gays. I also note that this stance is based on his spiritual beliefs, and that is damned hard to argue. I still don't like it, but it's a far cry from what I would call a genuine homophobia, and I still believe him to be a fair man. I can live with the man being true to his faith - if I genuinely believed he hated homosexuals it would be another matter for me.
Anyhow, it's not for me to say whether or not you can accept that the man is different from what you would hope that he would be ... only you can decide that!
I'll just have to go on the fact that I think he is a man of immense talent who has a very engaging voice; as someone that writes, it fills me with envy - as someone that reads, it fills me with awe. Michelle
Posted by aitch42 (Member # 7373) on :
quote: His politics, his beliefs about gays, and various things he has written in his columns are very different from many of my core beliefs
i'm curious now, so i had a quick look on the main page and found movie reviews, but not much other indications of writings. Has he posted his article re his feelings abuot gays anywhere within the site, and if so, can you give me directions there?
thanks - h.
Posted by Objectivity (Member # 4553) on :
One of the reasons many have this problem is because we're allowed to know OSC through his writings about other topics. You could just as easily disagree with Audrey Niffeneggar, Michael Palmer, Ben Bova, Harry Turtledove, or Jeff Shaara, but you would never know because they don't open up about their views as much.
OSC has said several times that characters speak their own opinions, not his, and there are a lot of times when he disagrees with them. I have no doubt that is true.
At the same time however, there are occasions (especially in the Shadow series, which I am rereading now) where I get thrown from the story because it's obvious that Card is using the character to express his views - mainly because the character is trying too hard to explain his (Card's) opinion.
I think part of that has to do with age. As we get older, we become less accepting of other views and get frustrated because the younguns don't see things as clearly as we do. I think another part of it is ego, and I don't mean that in a bad way. Card makes his living by telling stories that people like us want to read. Sometimes it's hard not to use the soapbox once you own it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I think part of that has to do with age. As we get older, we become less accepting of other views and get frustrated because the younguns don't see things as clearly as we do.
Are you "older," or is this your speculation?
-o-
I don't agree with some of his views. The ones I disagree with most strongly, though--I understand where they come from. I still read, and if not enjoy, at least appreciate, his columns. If you don't want to be challenged, then why read editorials? He forces me to examine why I disagree with him.
I still love his novels and short stories, and I don't see a contradiction between his beliefs and his writing. His editorials are more about the conclusions he has come to, whereas his novels and stories are more about the life he has observed. Your observations can be honest and true, and yet lead you to different conclusions than I have.
(I do agree with those who feel that his political beliefs seem to be more forced into the Shadow series, though. I know he claims never to use a character as a mouthpiece, but what can I tell you? )
Posted by Jqueasy (Member # 7085) on :
I find that when I am reading a story, that the story will have more importance to me if the author is using the story to convey a message or his opinion. Even if I don’t agree with it, the message gives the story a more important feel, it becomes more that a story, it become a vessel for an idea. I would rather read a story where the author is trying to get a point across than some empty story meant just for the purpose of entertainment. Because the idea will stick with you longer than the story will. Unless of course its ender's game and you read once a year. not that enders game is an empty story.
[ February 21, 2005, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Jqueasy ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
OSC has always claimed that he does not make a special effort to convey a particular message. Rather, he claims, if he simply tells a story that resonates with him, and that he is passionate about, the truths he believes in will naturally come across without being bombastic.
Personally, I don't prefer stories intended to be didactic. I like stories that explore issues and questions, but not those that feel like the author already knows the answer and is trying to sell me on it, with the story only being a flimsy veil. I think stories should be stories first.
Posted by Danny (Member # 7404) on :
There are a lot of highly intelligent people on this forum. Thank you for all of the insightful replies. I suppose I expected that since I enjoyed Card's books so much, he'd feel similarly about the world as I did. But you guys are right; a good story is a good story, regardless of how you feel about the author. I also agree that his Shadow series books have been much more of OSC's own voice speaking through his characters via page-long monologues.
Doesn't mean I won't be the first with a hardcover copy of SotG!
Keep posting. I enjoy reading your thoughts on this.
Posted by MichelleEly (Member # 6737) on :
Aitch - I'm not sure how much of his beliefs(on homosexuality)are in his columns on the board. I have read his words on the matter elsewhere.
I am here because of all the positives - not the negatives or things I don't believe in. (obviously) Michelle
Posted by Sid Meier (Member # 6965) on :
As I will say I rate the personal happiness of others over what some old smelly (and possibly altered) book may or may not say.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh? Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
One thought I had is in response to the thought that we like to think of our favorite authors as a kind of freind but become disalusioned by their personal opinions. One thought is this: How many of your freinds agree with you on your views in life. I know a great many of my freinds do not, does this make them any less my freind? No, it does not, it just makes for some good discussion when issues come up. Its my personal belief that without various opinions and ideals we would never question our own beliefs and I believe that only through questioning our own beliefs can we better understand ourselves.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I don't agree with most of the opinions OSC writes in his political columns. I used to read them regularly, because even when I didn't agree with him, I still found his opinions interesting. But the tone and rhetoric of his columns got worse and worse, so I gave up reading them.
If I hadn't already met OSC at a reading and liked him, or if I hadn't already read the testimonials to what a great guy he is, I'd think that he's an obnoxious jerk on the basis of his columns. I'd like to keep my good opinion of him, so I've given up on reading his columns.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Geoff - I was thinking as I read your post, you've sort of HAD to become really reasonable on this subject, haven't you? Otherwise I'd think being on Hatrack would drive you crazy. Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Who says it doesn't? Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I really wouldn't like to be in your shoes at this moment, Geoff - it sure would drive me crazy ! Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You keep coming back for me, don't you Geoff.
Don't worry. I already figured.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
What?
But Ralphie, I thought you were mine!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*betrayed* imogen! Posted by osc'solderthanmeafterall (Member # 7054) on :
Hmmm. I loved Robert Heinlein when I was young and I read a LOT of his books including ... well, the ones you probably wouldn't want your 16 year-old daughter to read. Then I read _Farnum's Freehold_ and after that I couldn't stand anything he wrote because all these disgusting ideas were in his other books but somehow they gelled for me in that one. As for OSC, I'd like to argue with him about some things -- but I find I have to have somewhat of a common language to even want to bother arguing with people. The issue I find most provokes me to wanting to argue with him is religion -- and I don't know much about Mormonism but as I read him, then read something about the Mormon faith, I find myself thinking "Oh that's where that comes from." Anyway I don't want to go on about this anymore because I don't want to start an argument or offend anyone on the forum (unless someone WANTS to argue, probably off the forum!) but I'm still reading OSC (just finished _Shadow of the Hegemon_). Christie
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that you can definitely appreciate Card's writing without agreeing with his beliefs. After all, you don't have to agree with his beliefs when you read his books.
I would agree, however, that disagreeing with an author's beliefs does make it somewhat awkward and occasionally bitter when reading their books. I read Mercedes Lackey and Anne McCaffrey reasonably often (being as they churn out dreck, er, books almost monthly) for light reading...but sometimes it gets hard when characters in a far-future sci-fi start yammering on about how (cowboys == bad) && (native americans == good) (boolean value: false) in a McCaffrey book, or when Lackey starts sermonizing about how wonderful and natural and acceptable homosexuality is, and how evil and intolerant people are who disagree with it...and let's not get started on how she negatively works Christianity into her novels.
So it makes a bitter pill to swallow sometimes, but if the story is good enough, it is still worth reading.
I still read those writers, but when it gets to the politically correct parts, I just grit my teeth, and skim until we get back to plot & action.
All writers work their personal beliefs into the stories - we generally don't notice the ones with whom we agree.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
OSC was invited by the MIT Students for Israel to speak on campus. This is an interview done following his speech.
The entire interview is good, but here is what I thought might be relevant to this discussion:
TT: -- where does the inspiration for your political writing come from?
OSC: I just look at the real world and I read everything I can get my hands on and I try to find out the truth as best I can. When I find that the truth isn’t being told widely and that the story that is being widely reported is misleading or leading us into bad decisions, then I do my best to try to balance it with the best and most powerful rhetoric I can to defend what I see as the best course of action...
TT: How do you reconcile things for people who respect you as an author but might not agree with your political views?
OSC: All I tell them is, I hate every word that Barbara Streisand has said about politics and I love her singing and I listen to her songs. I disagree with a lot of people and I still respect their art and find value in it.
At the same time, if somebody really loves my books, loves those stories, what they’re doing is they’re embracing my worldview. They may not agree with me on the specifics, but they dwelt in my mind for the length of time that they were in that book, and they weren’t uncomfortable there if they liked the book. So maybe they really ought to -- instead of just assuming that because I disagree with them I must be wrong -- maybe they ought to do some of the research I’ve done and find out why I believe the things I believe...
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
I guess i don't have this problem, i absolutly love his books, and -so far- agree with him politically.
-completely off subject- does anyone know where a copy of that essay talking about Ender and Valentine's 'incestuous' relationship is? while i know it's not true, i would like to see where the author of that essay got his/her ideas from.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Aitch42, welcome to the forum!
I'm not sure if this answers your question about where essays about homosexuality are but...
Others are on http://www.ornery.org/about.html Ornery is owned by Hatrack River Enterprises Inc., and so owned by the Cards, I guess. Beliefnet is independantly owned according to the website.
[ February 26, 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by OrneryMOd (Member # 5242) on :
Morbo and aitch42
www.ornery.org is owned by the Cards and was set up by OSC just a bit over 4 years ago to be his sort of political discussion web site. His polittical essays are posted there. The site has a little bit different feel than Hatrack, one that some people hate, some like and some love.
OrneryMod
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thanks, OrneryMod. I've been to your site several times and liked it but have never dug into the forum like I have here at Hatrack.
Now I have home internet access and 3 days off, so maybe I'll make up a screenname and dive in.
And aitch42, here's a thread about a OSC essay on homsexual marriage: Good . . . OSC... Pack some snacks, it's a 17pp thread over 7 months. The original OSC essay from Ornery: Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization Posted by aitch42 (Member # 7373) on :
quote: Aitch - I'm not sure how much of his beliefs(on homosexuality)are in his columns on the board. I have read his words on the matter elsewhere.
I am here because of all the positives - not the negatives or things I don't believe in. (obviously) Michelle
Me too - but being in the UK (and not being either religeous nor politically inclined) I don't frequent any US political sites or even know anyone who knows anything about OSC books even, let alone the man - except for people i lend my Ender books to. An American got me onto him, but wierdly he is not much known here at all - so this is my only "source" of OSC news :-o
The implication/statement of his being anti-gay suprised me, until i remembered his Mormon background, and consider that the Anglican church is currently being 'torn asunder' by rows about gay priests - though i guess i would "prefer" he would ignore that aspect of his religion :-o So it really is just curiosity.
Then i started thinking- are there any gays in any OSC books? The paedophile bit of course -lost boys - but the only gay bit i recal is in Songmaster where (IIRC) the first incidence was the last and would never happen again - a reflex action causing excruciating pain when he got 'excited', which was to protect his voice or something - years since i read it :-o The guy was gay (i think?) but i didn;t read the tale as anti-gay.
So it is only "on reflection" i compare his care to ensure there is no racism in his books, but absolutely no mention of that other great discrimination, homosexuality. But so long as that message doesn;t come through in his fiction, I don;t have a problem with his opinions - though i probably would if the books carried the anti-message.
Then again, i love his (fiction) writing - i read "Saints" and his religious series, even though i have no god-beliefs (and I am totally hetero, not that anyone here cares either way :-o )
quote: And aitch42, here's a thread about a OSC essay on homsexual marriage: Good . . . OSC... Pack some snacks, it's a 17pp thread over 7 months. The original OSC essay from Ornery: Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization
Many thanks, Morbo and OneryMod, for your welcome and info - i shall go for a quiet read :-)
h.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The writer's beliefs bother me not a bit unless the writing suffers because of it.
Also, it's helpful to step back and discover why the author believes as he or she does, as much as that is possible.
OSC, besides possessing strong religious beliefs, is a strong believer in the power of community and in personal responsibility and self-control. I can't argue with that, and I don't see how anyone could. What I can -- and do -- argue with are particular issues within those beliefs. We disagree on the specifics, but not on the goals.
Heinlein believed in personal responsibility, freedom of personal expression, good manners, and privacy. While his attitudes towards sex might bother people, his emphasis on child rearing, duty, rational patriotism, and strong marriages (of whatever type) cannot be denied. He remains one of my favorite writers.
Posted by aitch42 (Member # 7373) on :
quote: ....- i shall go for a quiet read :-)
and having had a quick scan through, i read him say:
quote:Let me put it another way. The sex life of the people around me is none of my business; the homosexuality of some of my friends and associates has made no barrier between us, and as far as I know, my heterosexuality hasn't bothered them. That's what tolerance looks like.
So that makes it sound a bit better than i had understood from some of this thread - so he is assure of his place on my particular pedastal, although it had wobbled a bit- as his beliefs have not made barriers in his personal relationships :-)
thanks again -
h.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
No problem, h. Glad to help.
I hadn't realized that thread had gotten to be 17pp...has there been a longer non-fluff thread on HR?
Posted by aitch42 (Member # 7373) on :
quote: No problem, h. Glad to help
thanks - and i am now reminded of another thing, which became more and more confusing as i read more of OSC - that of calling the "formics" the "buggers".
Initially, i thought "fine, insulting term to the enemy" - as "bugger" is offensive slang in english, and (relating to this thread) often used as such by homophobes to gays. (Though i often use "dopey bugger" as a mild insult when someone is plain daft, with no implication of their preference for non-standard/gay sexual activities).
But that doesn't tie up with OSC's writing style at all. So, maybe "bugger" isn;t slang in the US, and OSC didn;t know (or care about) the Uk-English meaning?
I know we speak separate langauges, so can you tell me, is "bugger" a rude word :-o in America? Or was it an intended insult in Ender's Game?
thanks!
h.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It is not a rude word in America, and Card was not thinking about a later-day British release when he wrote the story. This is why, in the newer books, the name "Formics" was introduced, and why "Buggers" is described in the Shadow books as slang, and even somewhat rude. Kind of addressing that after the fact.
But I'm too lazy right now to look up where (on this site) I read that (Somewhere on the OSC Q&A page, you can bet), so you'll just have to take my word on it until someone else comes along and comfirms it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks for posting the link to OSC's interview, kacard. I particularly liked the end.
I confirm what Ic said in the post above, although I don't feel like hunting for links either. So now you can depend on his memory and mine.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
kacard and Dog
Thanks for the insight.
[oops... ]
[ February 27, 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Can't you read, Telp?! His name's not Rat!
Posted by arichan (Member # 4390) on :
Yes. As a (very) latecomer to this discussion . . . yes, you can and should still appreciate and learn from what Card writes. Because no matter how his political beliefs may differ from yours (and they definitely differ from mine in certain areas), all of his stories and beliefs seem to me to be based in the only thing that matters -- love.
On another note, this is why I left this forum two years ago . .. because the discussions are all so intelligent and respectful that I end up spending WAYYYYY too much time here . . . Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:but the only gay bit i recal is in Songmaster
There's also a gay character in the Homecoming series. The character has to hide his sexual orientation, though, because he comes from a society that persecutes/kills gay men. Eventually he winds up as part of a small breakaway colony and has to marry a woman in order to fit in. (She's not attracted to him either--he's just the only unattached male left in the group.) As the series progresses, they learn to appreciate each other's personal qualities and become best friends. Although not based on romantic/physical attraction, their relationship is one of the strongest in the series.
[ February 27, 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Can't you read, Telp?! His name's not Rat!
fixed
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Thanks, Icarus! I'm impressed that someone besides me caught that Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I've just seen you rant about it before! Posted by LockeTreaty (Member # 5627) on :
Whenever I see a topic pop up about political views differing from ones expressed in a book, it always makes me think of Nietzche's Genealogy of Morals. In his third essay he brings up the value of seperating an artist from their work.
quote: ...my view is... that one does best to seperate an artist from his work, not taking him as seriously as his work. He is, after all, only the precondition of his work, the womb, the soil, sometimes the dung and manure on which, out of which, it grows-and therefore in most cases something one must forget if one is to enjoy the work itself.
Obviously, the essay was written in German originally (at least most of it), so this is a translation by Walter Kaufman. While the quote might be percieved as slightly offensive, it does remind you to keep an artist's work and the actual artist in perspective.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's funny that Heinlein came up twice in this thread, as he was frequently criticized on the basis of his political and social views as opposed to his writing directly, and I think had a character at least once explain why some separation between the artist's work and the artist personally is neccessary (I can't remember what story.) Spider Robinson mentions Heinleins' critics using this tactic in an essay, "Rah Rah R.A.H!"
I agree with Heinlein and Nietzche. I bet that's rare, I don't think Nietzche was a great philosopher. Yet as far as I know, he helped old ladies across the street, tipped well and was kind to dogs and children.
Who cares, unless you read his bio? It's his work that has survived over 100 years, not his character. I don't like him because his writings were extremely individualistic and elitist, and foreshadowed Rand and Strauss.
[ February 28, 2005, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by AntiCool (Member # 7386) on :
quote:Yet as far as I know, he helped old ladies across the street, tipped well and was kind to dogs and children.
Do you really? Or do you just not have any evidence to the contrary?
Posted by Danny (Member # 7404) on :
So according to Nietzche, OSC is the pile of manure, and the flowers that grew from it are his works? Nice.
In the Homecoming series, Zdorab learns to supress his gay urges FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE, after leaving Bascilica Not only does he marry a woman, but he remains loyal to her for the entire series. Definetly OSC coming through with "obligation to society over obligation to self". Personally I think that a system like this is supressive of gay people's right to be happy. Yea, Zdorab seems pretty content in the book. How many heterosexual guys do you think would be complacent in real life if told that they were compelled by law to marry, remain loyal to, and conceive (hypothetically) with, another guy?
I don't know. I still have a problem getting through his books when he still uses such preachy language. The original Ender series was better, but even towards the end it was getting iffy. Ender joining a religious society just so that he could be with his wife?
Thanks for making this thread so popular.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Well, the Mormon view would be that happiness comes from doing what is right, which is not necessarily the same thing as doing what one wants. We also emphasize responsibility and sacrifice. So here again, Card's views do come through.
I don't think that Card is one of those writers who puts message before story. He simply has such strong beliefs that influence his worldview that they cannot but come across when he writes - but his aim is to tell a story, not to proselyte a message, and that comes across as well.
So they are good stories that can be enjoyed without agreeing with the message, and that's actually a significant achievement.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I don't think that Card is one of those writers who puts message before story. He simply has such strong beliefs that influence his worldview that they cannot but come across when he writes - but his aim is to tell a story, not to proselyte a message, and that comes across as well.
Exactly. Putting message before story is a cardinal sin that Card has avoided in his fiction, at least in my opinion.
Porter, I guess I should have said I don't know either way, I know next to nothing about Nietzche's personal life.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Not only does he marry a woman, but he remains loyal to her for the entire series.
What other options did the poor guy have? In the small colony group, there weren't any other gay men.
quote:How many heterosexual guys do you think would be complacent in real life if told that they were compelled by law to marry, remain loyal to, and conceive (hypothetically) with, another guy?
Well, if there weren't any women around at all, perhaps quite a few.
As for the "conception" part--being gay doesn't change whether or not you want to have kids, right? And if the only way it would be physically possible for me to have kids was through gay sex, I'd do it. I wouldn't be thrilled about it (as the character Zdorab is not thrilled about straight sex with his wife--note they only have 2 kids, whereas everyone else has ten or so) but I'd do it, because I want kids.
Posted by JemmyGrove (Member # 6707) on :
quote: As for the "conception" part--being gay doesn't change whether or not you want to have kids, right? And if the only way it would be physically possible for me to have kids was through gay sex, I'd do it. I wouldn't be thrilled about it (as the character Zdorab is not thrilled about straight sex with his wife--note they only have 2 kids, whereas everyone else has ten or so) but I'd do it, because I want kids.
I know this thread isn't about homosexuality, but I found this really inciteful -- I appreciate seeing a perspective I wouldn't've come up with on my own (happens pretty regularly around here).
quote: At the same time, if somebody really loves my books, loves those stories, what they’re doing is they’re embracing my worldview. They may not agree with me on the specifics, but they dwelt in my mind for the length of time that they were in that book, and they weren’t uncomfortable there if they liked the book.
This bit rings true to me (" ... yes, it rings true..."). I think probably we often have more in common than we think -- that we may sometimes get cought up in what amounts to mere semantics in the long haul.
[edited: forgot half the post I meant to, uh, post]
[ March 02, 2005, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: JemmyGrove ]
Posted by adamsfrood42 (Member # 7464) on :
Like you, I've had a good section of my bookcase devoted to OSC since early middle school. I've also, for years and years, been a maniacally obsessed fan of Douglas Adams. I've read each book in his Hitchhiker "trilogy" a bare minimum of 20 times.
Douglas Adams was an atheist. As can be expected when an author feels a particularly strong conviction (especially a religious one) it tends to seek through, involuntarily or not, into parts of their writing (as we've seen from OSC himself).
I consider myself to be a Christian. Some of DNA's remarks in his books were offensive to me. However, that didn't stop me from reading them over...and over...and over...
Two people who have different opinions can still be the best of friends. In many cases, the discrepancy in viewpoint makes for an even more interesting friendship. Don't ever stop reading the books. Liking the author's writing doesn't mean you have to take on his beliefs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
We get someone in here at least once every few weeks with the exact same problem.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
So now you can depend on his memory and mine.
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
kacard and Dog![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)