quote:I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Really? How did you come by this impression?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also get the impression that Mr. Card has chosen to limit his acquaintance and exposure to those who will afirm and reinforce his representations of academia.
Really? How did you come by this impression?
His choosing to teach at SVU, specifically because he felt teaching writing elsewhere was giving power to those whose values he opposed.
And that most of his commentary on academia seems to come either second-hand from acquaintances who feel they've been done wrong by the culture of academia and a narrow range of articles that were written to expose alleged bias and politically correct thinking in academia, rather than first-hand experience with a broad range of sources.
My inference may or may not be correct, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence that would contradict it.
quote:Originally posted by Amka: As part of his career, I suspect Card deals with a lot of people in the publishing industry, in the movie industry, and the academic industry.
People in power, who make decisions that impact what the American public gets to hear. People who by and large have a liberal arts education.
I suspect he gets a lot more opportunity than most folks to observe how these people act.
His work as a novelist does not qualify him as an expert on what goes on in the classroom. Furthermore, his experience in business is not the same as that of a teacher or a student, or an administrator. I'm also quite sure that his interactions with the academic world are, as I said, his own, and tuned to reflect the force of his personality.
Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity. I can't know what he's like in all circumstances, but he's someone I would avoid doing business with.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
That seems to me to be an utterly random addition to the conversation. Is it your hope to only ever do business with those in agreement with your social views and values?
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. It is my hope to do business with pleasant people. I find him unpleasant. Talented, but unpleasant. Why is that random? It has to do with the business he's in- I don't think he's the type who plays nice, that's all. As someone pointed out, he works in a field that is involved in academia, and he goes very far out of his way to let everyone know how much he hates the field. He's also posted all kinds of things about the publishing and writing industry that were unflattering. His prerogative, but I wouldn't, for that reason, work with him- this is to point out that I may not be the only person who might feel that way.
I work with all kinds of people, and personal beliefs very rarely have to do with working relationships, I find. What does have to do with working relationships is OSC's penchant for hateful, belittling criticisms, in print. It takes a certain kind of person to stake his name to so much public writing full of invective. A person like that would probably be tough to work for, or with.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity.
I've worked with OSC on a couple occasions. I've disagreed with him on a couple occasions in the course of working with him. He's been nothing but professional and generous to me.
So of all the charges that have been levelled here at Scott, this is the one that I can utterly refute.
I've also had the opportunity to observe him in a tense classroom atmosphere, with a class member who was approaching hostility. Scott handled him quite ably, and without belittling or making fun of him. He defused the situation, and managed to allow the disenchanted classmember to keep his dignity. Scott Card is probably one of the most talented teachers I've ever had the opportunity to learn from and work with-- and since my career is closely related to training technical professionals, that's saying something. He is engaging, entertaining, knowledgeable, and gracious.
You don't know what you're missing, Orincoro. I count the time I've spent with Scott Card as perhaps the most enlightening and enjoyable professional experience I've had, ever.
Furthermore, there are few current professional authors who have such a wide mentorship. Scott's Literary Boot Camp is perhaps as well regarded in the speculative fiction field as Odyssey or the Writers of the Future workshop. Not to mention his sponsorship of the Intergalactic Medicine Show which along with Baen's Universe and Writers of the Future takes seriously the field's dependence on developing new talent.
While I understand why you feel the way you do, Orincoro-- and to some extent, it's OSC's fault for being so hard-nosed about a few hot button topics-- you are absolutely wrong about what it's like to work with the man.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine that Scott does a lot better in situations where 1. he's in a position of authority, and/or 2. he is not being caught off guard. I've seen him challenged at signings, and he handles it fairly ably. OTOH, he wrote somewhere that everyone in a creative writing class in which he was enrolled as a student hated him, because of his harsh criticism of everyone else's work. I think that situation was probably the opposite of when he's at his best. He was not in authority, and he was probably taken aback by the terrible quality of the writing of his fellow students. Just my thoughts.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I understand why you feel the way you do, Orincoro-- and to some extent, it's OSC's fault for being so hard-nosed about a few hot button topics-- you are absolutely wrong about what it's like to work with the man.
I'm inclined to believe that, of course. But were you always a student, and never an equal? That's a point of interest I think.
My perspective is of someone who has no intention of meeting him. I wouldn't put myself in that situation because my impression, only from what is in print, of his attitude towards other people. Of course, writing has little to do with one's actual interpersonal diplomacy. But when OSC characterizes not only his feelings towards others, but their supposed feelings towards him, and there are numerous instances in which he does so, they are *so* often negative, its hard to shake the impression.
It was Davis Sedaris who recently wrote that a certain very notable politician, someone whom he had personally castigated and denounced vociferously at dinner parties, came up to him after a book reading and offered to shake hands, praising his work. Sedaris took the hand, and thanked him. I thought that was pretty interesting. Sedaris intentionally left out who this person was, but I think the story touched on something important about institutional acts v. personal human behaviors- how the sum of the professional life of a person can overshadow the fact of that person, as he may be in a moment, or an hour, or in a certain situation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But were you always a student, and never an equal?
No.
I've been everyone's equal since I became an adult. There isn't the same power disparity between adult learners and their mentors as exists between younger learners and their teachers.
And the times we disagreed most were not in class; I was not his student; and I'd already had some success in the short fiction market.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's a bit disingenuous, you know what I meant, and you just didn't want to say you were only his student.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand your complaint. Can you show a bit more clearly how I was disingenous?
Try to use things I've actually said here to construct your argument, rather than fabricating motives for me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I met OSC, and he was as warm and funny and bright as one might hope. He's not an unpleasant man, he's pretty awesome. I don't fully understand why he uses some of the rhetoric he does at times in his columns, and like a lot of hatrackers, that's where I tend to fall into disagreement with him... But I think you're way off-base if you suppose that he's some kind of one-dimensional creature, some kind of unpleasant hag....
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I don't understand your complaint. Can you show a bit more clearly how I was disingenous?
Saying "I've worked with him," and leaving it at that, when I am talking about working with him in business, not as a student. I get to say I've "worked with" the Kronos Quartet, for example, but I was in a chorus of 100 people in one of their performances, and I spoke to them one time, they don't even know me- as an extreme example of "I've worked with." I understand your affiliation was more extensive than that, but you have shrouded it in a sense of mystery and confidence, and I would love to know why that is. If you don't want me to assign you motivations, perhaps you shouldn't talk as if you want me to believe you know more than you are letting on.
Now, I do think that OSC as a teacher could be an entirely different person from OSC sitting across from you at a desk, and so on. Have you "worked with" him as in work for payment? Have you been a superior, a subordinate, a partner, what? Your answer is disingenuous: saying that you're no one's inferior avoids the point of my question, which I didn't intend to contain such a value judgment. Now I hope you know what I'm asking, and I'd like to know the answer.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: But I think you're way off-base if you suppose that he's some kind of one-dimensional creature, some kind of unpleasant hag....
I can assure you that no, I don't think that. What I said was that I find him unpleasant. He is far from one-dimensional. What I said has to do with his overall character, not his social skills. I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life. That's it. I'd probably like him if I met him, but I've worked with plenty of likable people whom I would rather not work with again. As I've said, and as you've ignored twice, there can be a difference in a person's institutional or professional self, and their personal, social self. The power of anecdote maintains many people's superficial reputations, and destroys the reputations of others undeservedly.
Also, all the people you've disliked in your life probably had their share of friends. We have to know something about the kind of people we ought to avoid, if only for our own sanity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life."
I think his choice of moderator says it all. he chose Papa Moose, a pretty conservative Christian, but he's also a non-Mormon. And yes, I do think that their agreement on religious/social issues was a large part of why he chose him. To be fair, Papa was probably the longest-running active participant in the online Hatrack Universe, and was pretty widely-liked. However, I think it goes almost without saying that someone with clearly much more different religious/social views, all other things being equal, would have had a much lesser chance at being selected as Hatrack mod. Make what you will of all that.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Papa Moose is also responsible and has integrity. He is likeable because he was so even handed. They wanted someone they could trust to keep things in balance when they couldn't be there to watch it. I think it has worked out well.
I've worked with Card as a student in a small class. I've worked with his people in organizing parts of an event. I also communicated with him while I was setting up Philoticweb.
The man is generous. He genuinely cares about people. He has integrity.
The things he fights against are things he feels will incrementally make things worse for the individual. Whether you agree with him or not, understand that he is fighting for a better world.
Really guys. This is his personal website. How would you FEEL if you came on your personal site and read this kind of stuff about you. Just think about it for a while.
posted
Well, I don't know I want a better world too, but talking about gay people that way just doesn't sit well with me. It isn't right. I don't see the point of talking unkindly about a whole group of people because these things are complex. Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
Plus I haven't called him any names. I just feel angry and hurt reading articles like that so I should stop and memorize Japanese instead.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure whether to be offended that you thought I was lying, or offended that you apparently never noticed all my self-promotion.
quote: I would not want to be on the business end of his shotgun barrel, metaphorically speaking, for any reason, most especially if it involved my professional life.
The reality is that OSC is good for people in the speculative fiction business. I pointed this out above, when I said:
quote:there are few current professional authors who have such a wide mentorship. Scott's Literary Boot Camp is perhaps as well regarded in the speculative fiction field as Odyssey or the Writers of the Future workshop. Not to mention his sponsorship of the Intergalactic Medicine Show which along with Baen's Universe and Writers of the Future takes seriously the field's dependence on developing new talent.
OSC does business with people in his field all the time, and the field, and those who are his peers are better for it.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
How, exactly, do you know this? Are you privy to their charitable giving? To how they spend their volunteer time?
The most pressing needs in stopping spousal abuse, for example, are not in the public advocacy arena but in the individual giving/helping arena. There's not a big movement to reduce penalties for domestic assault right now. There are a lot of individual people who need individual help because of domestic assault.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let me tell you something- judging only from the way that OSC talks about people in print, I would never want to be someone who disagreed with him in any way that affected my work, in any capacity.
You asked Scott R, not me, but I'll answer too. I worked for Orson Scott Card a few years ago. My job consisted of reading through a novel manuscript and finding places where OSC had made mistakes in a field of study in which I have expertise. In other words, my job was to be critical of his work and disagree with choices he had made.
It was one of my most enjoyable work experiences ever. I wrote him numerous long e-mails with comments. His responses were gracious, complimentary, and funny. All of my corrections got incorporated in the finished book.
Also, OSC paid me twice as much as we had agreed. Plus I got a very nice acknowledgement in the book.
So that's what it was like to work for OSC.
(As for this thread in general, I really wonder what it was intended to accomplish. Perhaps the thread creator thinks he's Abner Doon or something.) Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Plus they ignore the real problems that need to be addressed too.
How, exactly, do you know this? Are you privy to their charitable giving? To how they spend their volunteer time?
The most pressing needs in stopping spousal abuse, for example, are not in the public advocacy arena but in the individual giving/helping arena. There's not a big movement to reduce penalties for domestic assault right now. There are a lot of individual people who need individual help because of domestic assault.
The other day I was reading an article about domestic abuse. They stated that it is a huge problem. What's worse is family members, friends, sometimes even the church seem to condone it. There is a lot about it that isn't understood, a lot of subtle abusive things that folks don't always see. Especially when it comes to emotional abuse. It doesn't help when there is a lot of support for wife only submission, which just makes things worse. Abuse whether it's an abusive husband, wife, whether children are being abused in the name of discipline is WAY MORE UNHEALTHY to the family and society than gay marriage is. To my knowledge Dobson and people like that don't even talk about abuse as much as they do homosexuality. Worse, extreme folks like Pearl seem to condone it and recommend that a woman totally submit to it. It's disturbing.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:(As for this thread in general, I really wonder what it was intended to accomplish. Perhaps the thread creator thinks he's Abner Doon or something.)
Interesting. What was that comment meant to accomplish?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But were you meant to, is the question. Clearly, that some people find a given piece of text interesting or amusing or insightful is not in itself enough motivation for saying things. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand this argument people make, on a lot of topics, that goes like this: "This issue we're discussing isn't as important as this OTHER issue we're not discussing. The fact that YOU'RE not talking about this other issue shows that you have terrible priorities, and are probably secretly in favor of the other issue continuing or getting worse."
We're capable, as a society, of discussing many different problems, on many different levels, and trying to solve them all simultaneously. The fact that there are people being killed in Darfur doesn't mean my wife and I can't have a discussion about what color to paint the children's room. Similarly, the fact that you consider X to be a more serious issue doesn't invalidate an entire discussion about Y.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But homosexuality IS trivial compared to the larger problems. Homosexuality isn't even a real problem unless people make it out to be. Most gay people work and contribute to society and their gayness doesn't get in the way of their lives unless they are being tormented about it. Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important. It's more helpful, in the long run, to address their concerns, rather than dismissing them as a distraction.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Besides, homosexuality is just yet another one of those hot topics designed to distract people from things that are much more important and things that are much worse.
Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important. It's more helpful, in the long run, to address their concerns, rather than dismissing them as a distraction.
I feel like all they are doing in that case is using fear to get people on their side. It has a terrible affect on gay people and how they are treated. If people perceive homosexuals as a threat, there's more likely to be violence and hate, and who needs that anymore? All it's doing is replacing understanding and compassion with fearmongering and the stirrings of unnecessary hate. It just can't happen anymore. The politicians for the most part seem to want to avoid real issues by claiming that homosexuality erodes American families, but that just ignores the stuff that really does hurt families!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This issue we're discussing isn't as important as this OTHER issue we're not discussing. The fact that YOU'RE not talking about this other issue shows that you have terrible priorities, and are probably secretly in favor of the other issue continuing or getting worse.
I agree with you, by and large. The only time I think this takes us into uncomfortable territory is when we start talking about partisan politics, where often you do -- as a practical matter -- have to pick and choose your priority. Do you want universal health care, or do you want to ban second-trimester abortion? You can't get both in an American political party. Is it more important to protect the spotted owl or keep same-sex marriage out of our courthouses?
(This isn't a new complaint, by the way. George Washington made this observation.)
--------
quote:Some politicians might use it that way, but the strategy wouldn't work unless there were a lot of people who were genuinely worried about the issue, who did consider it very important.
I'm not sure this is true at all. All this strategy requires is that you have the ability to make people think they care deeply for about four months every four years.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a matter of tactics, OSC might wish to consider that he is fighting a lost cause. Acceptance of gay marriage is huge outside of rural areas and, more importantly, among young people. All that needs to be done here is to wait twenty years, and the opposition will be dead, marginalised, or too old for politics. So just what does OSC accomplish by preaching to his equally-elderly, equally-religious choir? When a battle is well and truly lost, you are better off turning your resources to winning a different one.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rural: Anywhere that doesn't have huge acceptance of gay marriage. And 'huge' is, of course, the level of acceptance that exists outside of rural areas.
No, seriously. I'm actually going to have to eat my words on this, the data don't support them. I guess I'm an out-of-touch liberal elitist. It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.) And while the percentage is higher in rural than urban areas, it's not that much higher. I confess I find this result amazing, but there it is. I do note, however, that the percentage does drop considerably, from 80% to ~50%, as the birthdates increase from ~1930 to ~1990. That drop seems pretty significant to me, although perhaps not irreversible, so I'll have to take back my impression of the battle: OSC's cause is not lost. It's just evil.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.)
Bad assumption, at least if by "support gay marriage" you mean "support civil recognition of marriage for same sex couples with the exact same rights and benefits as male-female couples receive."
Certainly, I'm not saying I'm typical in this regard. But I'm far from unique.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To my knowledge Dobson and people like that don't even talk about abuse as much as they do homosexuality.
Again, though, there is not a public movement in support of abuse. Public advocacy is not as relevant to the abuse issue as other types of works are.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
We're capable, as a society, of discussing many different problems, on many different levels, and trying to solve them all simultaneously. The fact that there are people being killed in Darfur doesn't mean my wife and I can't have a discussion about what color to paint the children's room. Similarly, the fact that you consider X to be a more serious issue doesn't invalidate an entire discussion about Y.
So you're kind of validating this thread then... ok.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe dragging it from behind close doors into out of the open would help when it comes to abuse of spouses and children. Public accountability would help, as well as not tolerating abuse.
In this article the woman didn't receive any help from family, friends or her church. They all just to her to suck it up and that she had a good man and to simply deal with it. It shouldn't be like that. There should be a lot more support involved and helping people who are abused get out of these situations.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe dragging it from behind close doors into out of the open would help when it comes to abuse of spouses and children.
I don't see how domestic abuse can be said to be behind closed doors. It's out in the open. (Of course, it happens behind closed doors - that's why it's so difficult to fight. But the problem is out in the open.)
quote:In this article the woman didn't receive any help from family, friends or her church. They all just to her to suck it up and that she had a good man and to simply deal with it. It shouldn't be like that.
You're right. It shouldn't be like that. But unless you've got more data than this, you're not even close to supporting your contention.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It would appear that more than half of the American population believes that same-sex sexual relations are wrong. (I assume that, this being so, they would not support gay marriage.)
As Dag notes, this assumption is not necessarily valid. I know a number of people who believe that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong, but who would still approve of civil recognition of those relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see no problem with civil recognition of homosexual relationships. The government wouldn't force churches to marry them(the only thing I'm worried about) since it would violate separation of church and state. It wouldn't be substandard to the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. What's the problem?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As Dag notes, this assumption is not necessarily valid. I know a number of people who believe that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong, but who would still approve of civil recognition of those relationships.
I suggest that they are not typical; certainly not sufficiently so to invalidate the point I was making about the statistics I found. I do understand that there is no necessary correlation between the two positions, but I think that in practice, they very often are correlated.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suggest that they are not typical; certainly not sufficiently so to invalidate the point I was making about the statistics I found.
Support for an amendment banning same-sex marriage polls considerably lower than opposition to same-sex relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nick: I see no problem with civil recognition of homosexual relationships. The government wouldn't force churches to marry them(the only thing I'm worried about) since it would violate separation of church and state. It wouldn't be substandard to the rights that heterosexuals enjoy. What's the problem?
I would like to know why people are so concerned over this non-possibility. Where in this argument is there even the suggestion that churches ever be forced to marry anyone? As far as I know, a church can refuse to marry anyone it wishes- for any reason. If I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know.
Isn't there a legal, state-recognized use of "marriage" that falls under state laws and regulation? Why would churches ever be forced to perform this civil function? Just because they *can* perform marriages doesn't mean they must perform them... right?
If this is the concern, I'm all for removing the church's involvement in state recognized marriage all together. If people want a church-recognized marriage, they can be married in a church, but isn't legal marriage something that can be done separately by a justice of the peace?
Why all the concern about the state forcing the churches to do anything? Is there really any indication that the state has the right to do so, or that it would even try? I am much more greatly concerned that the churches are attempting to meddle in civil affairs that are outside their realm- involving people who are not necessarily members of any church, like myself.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoa there, I wasn't saying I thought it was even a remote possibility that the state could force a church to marry anybody, I was just stating the fact that they can't. I was stating that because that's really the only argument that can be raised in terms of civil unions. I wasn't saying I think it would happen. Maybe I wasn't being clear, but I only brought it up to show how it can't be used as an argument against civil unions because of the separation of church and state.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I would like to know why people are so concerned over this non-possibility.
I would like to know why you assumed I was one of those people.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would like to know why you assumed that I assumed you were one of those people. And around and around we go.
The fact that you asked me specifically where in the thread that "the suggestion that churches ever be forced to marry anyone?" suggests very strongly that you thought I was concerned about it.
quote: I am aware that isn't your position, but not everything is about you.
Please. It's worth noting that I wasn't rude when I responded to your post, and I expect the same courtesy. I hardly think everything is about me.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
