Can anybody conceive why they are using THIS picture of Mr. Card? Are there none out their that confirm the existance of his eyes?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a surprising amount of material that doesn't have articles. If only I weren't so lazy.
Oh man, inclusion of information on his weight is the sort of thing that makes me not want to have anything to do with Wikipedia.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Card has written two different depictions of homosexual characters finding happiness by entering an opposite-sex marriage one in his Shadow series, and one in his Homecoming series, in which a gay man living within a tiny community of space colonists chooses to marry a woman and have a child in order to "rejoin the web of life" and perpetuate the human race in the new world.
I can't think of anyone in the Shadow series, but I could be wrong. Anyone care to enlighten me?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anton (was that his name?) He was first introduced when Sister Carlotta visited him to learn the details of Bean's condition in ES. Bean and Petra also visit him in SP, and he helps to convince Bean to have children with Petra. I'm pretty sure he also appears in SotG, but I can't remember what role he plays exactly.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that the text comes right out and says it, but it is STRONGLY implied. Read the chapter where Bean and Petra visit him in SP.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also show homosexuals having homosexual relationships. I've known people in both situations, and in my fiction try to depict them honestly and accurately. My fiction is not a soapbox, it's a subcreation (to use Tolkien's term) in which I try to create plausible characters in plausible relationships with each other and the world around them. It would be absurd for me to show every homosexual living in utter happiness OR in utter misery just because I have opinions about what public policy ought to be in our contemporary world. It would pollute my fiction to bend it to fit my or anyone else's ideology - except, of course, the ideologies of my various characters, to the degree they act according to their beliefs.
Homosexuality is not a major theme in my work; I don't write about it obsessively (either in my fiction or in my published essays), I don't crusade about it, it isn't a "cause" of mine. It says far more about the surrounding society's obsessions that THIS theme is probably the most controversial one in my work. Apparently some people simply cannot rest with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, has an opinion that diverges from their own.
Oddly enough, I have been roundly criticized INSIDE the Mormon Church because my fiction is so favorable to homosexuality. Go figure.
Fortunately, most people keep things in perspective and read my stories for what they are, instead of for what someone thinks they ought to have been. Look at how dated "feminist" stories of the 70s or "anti-Communist" stories of the 50s feel today, and you'll see what I mean.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somebody went crazy on Wikipedia...there are seperate entries for each of the characters in Enders Game?? Isn't that abusing the system just a little? Posts: 464 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't know "Christmas in Battle School" was to be set after Shadow of the Giant, or that Edmund Schubert will become the new editor of IGMS tomorrow. The kinds of things you learn from Wikipedia...
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually use wikipedia to read about things that I already know about, just for fun, and in my experience it usually is quite accurate. Most contributors take it seriously and only add true info, and point it out if something is unconfirmed.
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! If you intend to grant permission for use of the new O.S. Card image, you may want to indicate so here, including with what type of license or restrictions you convey the permission. Otherwise the Recent changes patrol may remove it. Particularly because the image is currently labeled as a scan from a newspaper, it will almost certainly be tagged soon as mislabeled, in which case it will not last long.
Thanks! - a Wiki Borg drone
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's true that what I perceive as the "mainstream" of Mormonism is made uncomfortable by a lot of OSC's writings.
SPOILERS I don't see Zdorab and Anton as similar. Zdorab (in the homecoming series) has no other gay people to be with, and cannot really be part of the community without marrying and reproducing. He tells his wife he had to fantasize about something else in order to impregnate her. /SPOILER Anton didn't seem as real to me- probably due to my self-consciousness about the gay marriage issue and how this character would "play with the audience." But I've known women who mainly wanted to get married in order to have children. What makes it so unlikely that a gay man would? I actually know a lof of guys with a stronger will to raise children than to be sexually fulfilled. It's not like anyone really achieves sexual fulfillment anyway, that's like being chocolately fulfilled.
quote: In October of that year [1983], a new contract for the Alvin Maker "trilogy" (now up to 6 books) allowed him to return to freelancing.
Wow, I didn't realize that. If it weren't for Alvin Maker, we probably wouldn't have about 30 other OSC works.
posted
Which makes it a very important piece of information. I assumed someone included it to cast an aspersion on his character.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weren't we discussing the picture in at least 3 threads before that? I was warning him about his lecturing.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In the fall of 2005, Card also launched Orson Scott Card's Intergalactic Medicine Show ([1]). He edited the first two issues, but found that the demands of teaching, writing, and directing plays for his local church theatre group made it impossible to respond to writers' submissions in a timely manner; former Card student and experienced freelance writer and editor Edmund Schubert became the new editor as of 1 June 2006.
Ahhh, a reference to IGMS with today's date...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new entry is quite informative. It even mentions the new editor for the IGMS who apparently grabbed the reigns today.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't grab reins at IGMS. You grab piles of manuscripts and start reading them, meanwhile absorbing the psychic whines of the authors whose submissions have gone unattended for an unconscionable length of time.
Christmas at Battle School will be PUBLISHED after Shadow of the Giant, but it takes place before Ender's Game. Or rather, just before Ender arrives there, but when other characters known from that book (Dink Meeker, most notably) are already there.
Those who have weight problems would hardly think that my weight loss of 95 pounds (actually, it got to 100 pounds on that one stretch) would discredit me! I talk about it quite freely; I'm not distressed that it is mentioned on Wikipedia. It explains why I never look like any picture of me - I'm always at different points in the weight cycle.
I COULD have made that reference more accurate and tracked the weight loss patterns to exhaustive detail: 1971, 230 lbs. 1973, 176 lbs. 1979, 283 lbs. 1981, 185 lbs. 1997, 310 lbs. 1999, 210 lbs. (that's the the "95 lbs without dieting" referred to in Wikipedia) 2005, 273 lbs. Present day, 235 lbs. and falling. But who, besides me and the people who sell me clothing, actually cares? <grin> I have the body I have; I do what I can to keep it healthy.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We care! A healthy OSC means longer life and more energy which means more great stories for all of us.
Long live the Card!
We dont have that head thing from Wyrms yet . Or we wouldnt have to worry as much about getting all the completed works. Though if Im remembering right the head thing was more like a hard drive. Not really any new thinking or experiences going on. Dang . All good plans.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indeed, I struggle a lot with my weight. That's probably why I was so horrified to see it in there.
There is that Malpractice story treatment at Taleswapper.net about people grafting the organs of a great man into recipients in order to artificially resurrect him. Or are they all grafted into one donor?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um, either a winky is in order or I will have to point out your spelling and punctuation errors. Or are they usage errors if it is a word but in the wrong place?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
If he cited the statements being referred to, it seems to be within the policy described on Wiki's NPOV page.
Can you cite the specific policy that states one can't post information about oneself? If it's in there, it's not readily apparent.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions not based on what I said. Where they reported what OTHER people say about me, I left those bits alone, of course - I only corrected spots where they summarized my statements, beliefs, or actions inaccurately. I believe in the kind of thing wikipedia does, so I would not want to meddle with it to bend it in my favor; what I was pleased with, actually, was how fair the consensus process of wikipedia turned out to be. I hadn't read it till now, precisely because I assumed it would have been mostly written or edited by those determined to believe that I'm the devil.
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Basically it seems that they strongly discourage people writing their own articles because of their push for the Neutral Point of View.
But they said they're fine with people editing an entry made of them to update things outdated or fix minor inaccuracies. OSC was perfectly in bounds.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: I went into the wikipedia stuff about me and fiddled, adding some information about my career and correcting small errors of fact and clarifying places where the original writers leapt to their own conclusions...
This is against Wikipedia policy Scott, no primary source material allowed on Wikipedia. Your not allowed to enter new information about yourself, even if its true.
Basically it seems that they strongly discourage people writing their own articles because of their push for the Neutral Point of View.
But they said they're fine with people editing an entry made of them to update things outdated or fix minor inaccuracies. OSC was perfectly in bounds.
I agree with Card and Vadon on this; his edits benefited the accuracy of the article and did not bias its point of view, and he has hardly made a practice of tinkering with his own article. Geoffrey has made similar minor corrections on this page in the past.
Posts: 2 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexuality is not a major theme in my work; I don't write about it obsessively (either in my fiction or in my published essays), I don't crusade about it, it isn't a "cause" of mine. It says far more about the surrounding society's obsessions that THIS theme is probably the most controversial one in my work. Apparently some people simply cannot rest with the knowledge that someone, somewhere, has an opinion that diverges from their own.
There seems to be no way to do it right. If there were no homosexual characters in your books, they'd call you homophobic or unrealistic. If there are, they accuse you of being homophobic or simply ignorant about the 'real' problems, wishes, life, whatever of homosexuals. If you were a homosexual, who creates h. characters, they'd say, that this is only YOUR point of view and that this does not apply to ALL h.s etc.
Another example: Diana Gabaldon (the "Voyager"- books) said, some people actually blamed her to glorify anorexia in one of her books. In the scene to which those people referred when they wrote to DG, Claire, one of the main characters, was finally about to meet her husband Jamie again, the great love of her life, after the odds had seperated them for 20 years. She was pretty nervous, and after all, only human. Certainly, Claire would be worried whether he still found her as attractive as when she was 26, although she was pretty sure that he still loved her. However, she wondered in a short scene (naked in front of a mirror), whether she had gained weight, and she was relieved not to have changed so much in two decades. (In addition to that, she was even kinda proud of her still-round butt. )
I really don't understand people who don't seem to READ novels, but rather check them hopefully for things which could be offending. Do they really ask for novels in which every single maybe-controversial thing is censored?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Card identifies himself as a Democrat, which he asserts is because he is pro-gun control/anti-NRA, is highly critical of free-market capitalism, and believes the Republican party in the South continues to tolerate racism.
Is this true? I am surprised if it is, I had thought OSC was more pro-freedom than that. That is an opinion I associate more with the ivory-tower leftists that he ocaisionally castigates.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
:sigh: I registered Republican when I got my driver's license yesterday. I was unaffiliated in Utah but now I live in a "blue" state (Maryland.) But I basically see the NRA as nearly as bad as Planned Parenthood, in being this extremist flashpoint that the respective parties use to scare people into donating.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If those damn Ivory-tower leftist élitist tree-hugging gay-loving Mexican-loving commies get their way, you won't have any arms to flail. Shall I put you down for a donation to the NRA's arm-a-ftus campaign?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am curious what the NRA does that is so bad, (I as a pro 2a RKBA person have my own gripes with them.)
As for OSC being a Democrat, I consider myself a liberal, and I am not a Republican by a long shot, but that has no bearing on my 2a opinions. And any Democrat who is an ardent supporter of Bush and a detractor of Clinton is certainly not a textbook Dem.
quote:If those damn Ivory-tower leftist élitist tree-hugging gay-loving Mexican-loving commies get their way, you won't have any arms to flail. Shall I put you down for a donation to the NRA's arm-a-ftus campaign?
I am curious what this comment was supposed to accomplish.
Posts: 186 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was supposed to accomplish making me chortle, well done sir! Ah, humor, so hit or miss...
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, objectively, it is a massive special interest group that uses its money to bribe- I mean, finance- politicians into voting a certain way, which is never a good thing.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The hotel I work at hosted the national NRA conference last year. I got to check in R. Lee Ermey (drill seargent in Full Metal Jacket). That is one good thing about the NRA.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be anti-gun-control, or at least pro-gun-ownership. I think the NRA is a great organization for teaching about the responsible use of firearms. Unfortunately they seem more and more rabid in the political scene. They probaly feel they need to be to counter that rabid gun-haters, but it still unfortunate to see.
Posts: 18 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, and Planned Parenthood's main income is from birth control pills and not abortions. No one can get by in life being 100% evil all the time. It's just too exhausting.
Actually, I do believe both groups are made up of well-intentioned people. Most of my personal service at this time goes to a 12 step organization for codependency, overeating, and any other problems that people can't seem to give up. I've very aware there are people who consider 12 step "evil".
My day job is apparently hijacking threads.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I assumed someone included it to cast an aspersion on his character.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I am surprised if it is, I had thought OSC was more pro-freedom than that. That is an opinion I associate more with the ivory-tower leftists that he ocaisionally castigates.
