quote:Q. Myself and a friend at work found one distinct similarity between your writings and Orson Scott Card's, and that is the emotionally exhausting levels of experiences the characters go through. Apart from the Gap and Covenant books, the most emotionally-charged books I've read were the Ender books by Mr. Card. Have you read them and if so, what are your particular thoughts on the writings?
A. I don't read Card because I don't approve of his stand on censorship (he's all in favor--as long as the Mormons get to do the censoring).
This is from Stephen R. Donaldson's "gradual interview" on stephenrdonaldson.com. I love the works of both men, and it's a shame that Donaldson is so dismissive of OSC (I have only a vague notion that OSC likes, or did like, some of Donaldson's work, so I don't know how mutual the antipathy might be).
Any SRD fans have an idea of where Steve got his "censorship" notion from?
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what OSC's views on censoship are, but it seems more like SRD is saying he's more against Mormons in general than just OSC in specific (Otherwise he would have left the jab at Mormons out of his comment). Really, as far as I've seen, OSC's view on censorship is fairly liberal as far as Mormons go.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
David, that's an interesting question. Sorry I don't know the answer. I guess you could try emailing Steve and see if he answers your question.
(If you want, I can pose the question at the SRD forum and see if anyone there knows the answer.)
Boris, I very much doubt that SRD is against Mormons in general. From what I know of him, it just doesn't seem like his style to single out a group that way. My guess is that he disagrees with OSC's opinions and feel that they stem from his religious beliefs - I really don't get the impression that he is jabbing at Mormon's in general with that remark.
[ December 21, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember a part from an OSC review where he got on Stephen King's case because King had once said that he thought... I think rap or alternative rock or something... was crap. Card said something about how King's opinions couldn't be everyone's opinions. That seemed very silly to me. Opinions are opinions.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Boris, I very much doubt that SRD is against Mormons in general. From what I know of him, it just doesn't seem like his style to single out a group that way. My guess is that he disagrees with OSC's opinions and feel that they stem from his religious beliefs - I really don't get the impression that he is jabbing at Mormon's in general with that remark.
To me, the way he said it, with the comment included, seems like he doesn't really know OSC's stand on censorship and is just giving him the stereotypical Mormon view, which is fairly strict. So what I'm basically saying isn't that he hates Mormons, but is rather applying a stereotype in his judgement. Though I'm probably jumping the gun just as much (Don't know the guy, never read his stuff).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read Lord Foul's Bane many many years ago and thought it was complete and utter junk...
I never wasted any more time or thought on Donaldson after that (except to steer my daughter away from his books at the library a few weeks ago).
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if the books would be appropriate for your daughter, maui girl, not knowing your daughter's age.
They are definitely not complete and utter junk, however.
They are not easy books to read, but definitely worth the effort. I have grown to love the whole series.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found a fairly definitive statement by OSC describing his views of censorship. I think he comes off as fairly conservative (big surprise there) and arguing against government censorship. I found another article where he argued against religion-based censorship of art as well. Basically, he was talking to a group of LDS artists about the minor frustrations of dealing with Church bureaucracy. It only applied to works developed FOR the church, so I decided not to post that link here.
quote: Do you believe that violence depicted in computer games, TV and films have an effect on teen violence, such as that which occurred at Columbine High School?
Serious studies have shown that for those who are violence prone, depictions of violence can raise their level of likelihood to act violently. This is hardly a surprise -- if our entertainment media did not cause us to be more likely to act in imitation of or admiration for what we see, advertising would not work and so those arts would not pay (grins). However, common sense also tells us that the violence-prone managed to do plenty of mayhem before television or radio or movies or computer games existed. That's because all these are is storytelling media, and before these media existed, we still had stories. Check out Jack and the Beanstalk and the grisly events in Homer. We have stories about hunger, love, and death because that's what we care about in our lives.
So the problem isn't that we have these new media which give us stories we've never had before. The problem is that the new media give them to us with a level of realism that we've never had before, and the filmwrights and gamewrights are so lacking in taste, proportion, and social conscience that they treat both violence and sexuality with a prurient fascination that has long since passed the boundaries of wackoland. Is there anyone in the audience who needs yet another graphic depiction of sex or violence? Is there anyone who ever needed it? You can have the threat of violence and the promise of sex without ever showing them -- and they're almost always far more effective presented that way than they ever are when graphically displayed. It's bad art, and it has a bad effect on those who are most vulnerable to it. But unfortunately, most of these arts are practiced by people who have not grown out of the adolescent stage of wanting to shock people in order to seem cool -- even though, like adolescents, they can't think of a single new way to shock anybody, so nobody is actually shocked at all, they're just embarrassed or bored ... or, if they're marginal personalities, excited in a sick way. There is a myth that "expressing" or "fulfilling" an emotion makes it go away, as if humans were balloons that need to vent these gases or explode. But the opposite is true, and we've known it all along, despite the bogus "experts" who told us repression was bad for us. If you act out your anger, you get angrier. If you act on your lusts, it takes even more to stimulate them next time. The more violence and sex we get from our entertainment, the angrier and more violent and more perverse and more sex-obsessed we become. Repression caused us no discernable harm beyond temporary frustration -- and as any good lover knows, temporary frustration is the essence of the art of satisfaction. But massive "expression" of the "truth" of violence and sex has caused us great harm. Of course, the boundaries of taste are drawn in different places for different people. Things that offend me might not offend you, or vice versa. That's why the idea of government meddling in censorship is so bad -- from the first moment, the censors always go straight for things whose "evil" is visible only to them, while ignoring the things that are truly awful. The trouble is that when there is no self-restraint, governments eventually get involved. If smokers, for instance, had merely been courteous and kind to others, there would be no anti-smoking laws. It was the shameless rudeness of smokers that led to them being fenced around with law, and I have no pity for them. Likewise, if we get government censorship it will be wholly because of the irresponsibility of storytellers who cared not a whit for the effect their work might have on the community they live in. They have fouled the nest; if they don't clean it up themselves, they probably aren't going to like it when somebody else cleans it up for them. I hate censorship; but I hate having to raise my children in the culture these irresponsible people have created and are creating for us. When the balance tips, it will tip hard and far, and I personally resent the all-or-nothing crew who, by adamantly rejecting all self-restraint and celebrating the most vile stuff as "edgy" and admirable, will someday provoke the puritan backlash that will clean my slate along with theirs. They'll whine about the censors, but I'll know that it was their own excesses that led society to prefer the censors to them. The only consolation is that the public can only stand censorship for a little while. Within a generation, the theaters reopened in England; the people of Iran are already wishing for more freedom. But wouldn't it be better to use good taste and a sense of decency and public responsibility to keep the censorship from ever seeming necessary?
But reading this, and knowing that OSC is very consistent over time in his public statements, I'd be very surprised to find anything remotely resembling the statement that SRD thinks he heard or read.
Oh well.
Maybe he's ticked off because he's taken a lot of heat for the child rape in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant series, and the violent sex/mind control/etc. in the Gap series and he just assumes that conservative folks who self-identify strongly with any form of Christianity must have a big problem with his books.
posted
IIRC, Card has come out in favor of certain forms of censorship. I'll see if I can find a link.
I respect both authors' work a great deal, but can immediately understand why they might disagree on a number of political issues; the only author in my top ten who is less like Card than Donaldson is Steve Brust.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of what OSC actually believes about censorship, isn't it a bit petty to not read someone's books just because you don't agree with unrelated political beliefs of theirs? I would think so.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's professional envy. I've read one Donaldson book (The Diamond Age), and I HATED it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds like a boycott, to me. Would you say its unreasonable for consumers not to buy a product produced by slave labor?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it depends. I have stopped reading his political articles because they stress me out too much. I still try to read his later books as well, but.. I seem to be a little.. alergic to conservatism.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Regardless of what OSC actually believes about censorship, isn't it a bit petty to not read someone's books just because you don't agree with unrelated political beliefs of theirs? I would think so.
That's what I'm screaming. I'm not a fan of, for example, Tim Robbin's politics, but I think he's a great actor and love his work. I refuse to listen to Britney Spears, not because I think she's...not right...but because her music sucks. But I guess he's just depriving himself by refusing to read something because of a political argument.
[ December 21, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think his refusal is unreasonable (I refuse to read anything by Terry Goodkind), but I do think it was a dumb and tacky answer to the question.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sounds like a boycott, to me. Would you say its unreasonable for consumers not to buy a product produced by slave labor?
Boycotting products because of civil rights issues and refusing to read something because of a political disagreement are two completely different sides of the coin.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree; a persons political beliefs, unless they are highly visible in the literature itself or perhaps extremely offensive (fiction by Hitler, for example, if it existed), should not be a barrier to read someone's writing.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think his refusal is unreasonable (I refuse to read anything by Terry Goodkind), but I do think it was a dumb and tacky answer to the question.
I think that's why this guy's comment bothers me. A better answer would be, maybe, "I haven't really had much of an interest in Card's work. Sorry I can't answer your question."
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Goodkind, yes. What's with him? Doesn't he know the Cold War is over? He showed such promise, too, in Wizard's First Rule. Even if, now I think about it, the D'Haran army is a really excellent analogy to the Wehrmacht. Great fighters, nearly overran the world once, bound by treaty to a small part of the continent (even if the boundaries are a bit more solid than Versailles) and, of course, you can resurrect them as heroes to fight the evil commies, because the army officers were just taking orders, they didn't know about the camps. I wonder if he planned it that way?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:He showed such promise, too, in Wizard's First Rule. Even if, now I think about it, the D'Haran army is a really excellent analogy to the Wehrmacht. Great fighters, nearly overran the world once, bound by treaty to a small part of the continent (even if the boundaries are a bit more solid than Versailles) and, of course, you can resurrect them as heroes to fight the evil commies, because the army officers were just taking orders, they didn't know about the camps.
That doesn't sound like 'promise' to me. It sounds more like a cop-out.
kat:
quote:I don't think his refusal is unreasonable (I refuse to read anything by Terry Goodkind), but I do think it was a dumb and tacky answer to the question.
You only think it's tacky because you don't loathe OSC. What do you think OSC would say if an interviewer asked him if he had any interest in the work of--oh, let's just pluck a name from his latest review column--Steve Bochco?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Maybe it's professional envy. I've read one Donaldson book (The Diamond Age), and I HATED it."
While Donaldson may indeed be jealous of Card -- although I'm not sure how you'd go about measuring that -- it's worth noting that the brilliant book The Diamond Age was in fact written by Neil Stephenson, who in addition to spelling and pronouncing his name differently is a different author altogether.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops. That's what happens when you walk away without hitting the "Add Reply" button, and then remember to do so 20 minutes later, heh.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was this close to looking that up, just to make sure there weren't two books with the same title by two different authors. Thanks for saving me the trouble Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do know many people view public condemnation by private groups or boycotts as censorship if they will cause people not to watch/read/listen to something. Perhaps he's referring to something like that.
I've never considered those censorship. I consider them paradigmatic exercises of free speech.
posted
I do find OSC becoming more and more heavy handed with his ideals. Even in his books, which is a real turn-off. Sorry. Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*laugh* Fair enough. (The Diamond Age was still appalling.)
Who the heck is Donaldson then? *goes to google*
quote:What do you think OSC would say if an interviewer asked him if he had any interest in the work of--oh, let's just pluck a name from his latest review column--Steve Bochco?
My Orson Scott Card is perfect and any imperfections in courtesy which currently occur are obviously the work of the evil twin that occasionally takes over his computer. I'll fight anyone who says otherwise.
posted
Donaldson's written some top-notch short stories, one classic -- but very dark -- fantasy series (with two lesser spinoffs), and an absolutely fantastic sci-fi series (his Gap books) that rank up there IMO with some of the best character-driven science fiction ever written. He's like Orson Scott Card, except most of his characters hung out with Calvin too much.
(As a side note, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by the thought that anyone might hate The Diamond Age. It's on my Top 25.)
posted
Hating The Diamond Age, but loving OSC, should I read Donaldson? I'm running out of books again and after seven in a row I think I ODed on Terry Pratchett.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing about Donaldson - I liked the stories, but underlying the story of the Land's creation was a mythos/metaphysics that struck me as false. Since so much of the story depended on that, there was always a subtle tug of disbelief (not related to Covenant's Unbelief) while reading the story.
That's why Xenocide threw me. It presented, as I understand it, an interpretation of Mormon belief or custom about the nature of the world that I just don't share. Once the "Outside" and philotes-as-souls entered into the story, I had to fight to keep myself within it.
It was a problem I never had with Tolkien. Even before I read the Silmarillion, his Catholic worldview was subtly underpinning his entire presentation of Middle Earth. And, of course, that's a worldview I'm very comfortable with.
I like the two Covenant series I've read and Xenocide/Children of the Mind, but the inclusion of those worldviews yanked them out of the myth category for me.
posted
*agrees with Book* It's painful to read how OSC is basically blaiming people of my ilk for the downfall of marriage. Which STILL makes no sense to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, if you read Donaldson, I think you should stick with the short stories. His novels are a bit dark -- especially in the early going; it's almost as if he's daring readers to keep going. (Oddly, they all get less dark after the first book in any given series, presumably after he's scared off all the straights or something.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I would suggest the first Covenenat series, Lord Foul's Bane, The Illearth War and The Power That Preserves.
If you can make it through the first book, in particular the first 5-6 chapters, then you should be fine. Just know that nothing he does goes with out consequence, and he knows it and accepts it.
posted
One thing to keep in mind about Donaldson is that he is very much interested in pain and how otherwise not terribly significant people are able to use their pain in powerful ways.
As a result, all of his characters are terribly tortured by him; the emotional depth that results from this is what makes him, along with OSC, one of my favorite authors.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What word can replace "mormon" in that sentence and not offend someone?
"...as long as the [your group here] get to do the censoring."
I guess it is only offensive insofar as Mormons believe they are perceived to be more likely to censor than others. So, uh, thanks to those who confirmed that suspicion.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been wanting to read the covenant books, too.
I've always felt that one shouldn't judge the artistic work of someone based on their political views, because if I only watched or read things by people that agreed with me I'd get bored pretty quickly. For the most part, I can ignore it, and still watch movies with people in them who are divergently opposed to what I hold dear.
There are, of course, some lines that if they're crossed it's too far for me. George RR Martin crossed it with his post-election comments, where he blanketly insulted anyone who didn't vote for Kerry, however - his tone was very different in his follow up note, so I still haven't decided whether or not to buy AFFC when it comes out. There is a point where you really just don't want to put any money in the pocket of someone who hates you, ya know?
[ December 22, 2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I still haven't decided whether or not to buy AFFC when it comes out. There is a point where you really just don't want to put any money in the pocket of someone who hates you, ya know?
Just remember that it is a business transaction, where you get a product (Martin's latest tale) for the bucks. Martin will go one day, but his story will remain in your memory.
Besides, I still buy Uncle Orson's books every now and then. Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I guess it is only offensive insofar as Mormons believe they are perceived to be more likely to censor than others."
Aren't you? I was under the impression that most of those "CDs and DVDs with the naughty bits edited out" companies did most of their business in Utah.
posted
Have any data to back that up? I'm pretty sure airlines are the most responsible for "censoring" movies. "Mormons" have simply sought ways to access those products.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should have said "individuals" to make it clearer that I wasn't going to include the airline industry in that assessment. I believe the two big DVD censor companies -- ClearPlay and Trilogy (who makes Movie Mask) -- are both based in Utah. CleanFlicks, the country's largest supplier of (possibly illegally) edited DVDs, is also based in Utah.
While I can't find consumer usage stats, it does appear that censorship is quite literally a cottage industry in Utah.
posted
If I followed the rule of not supporting someone (by buying his books) because I disagree with his political views and the way he expresses them, I would have to stop buying OSC's books.
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. OSC regularly reviews R rated movies in his column and advocates them if he feels they are worth seeing. Movies are a different question. I have never gotten the impression that OSC advocates censoring or editing movies. Quite the opposite.
I assumed that the issue was the church withdrawing membership from those who are using their membership and position as a pedestal from which to criticize and demean the church.
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
