posted
Just to clarify beforehand this is all speculation, I respect all peoples' opinions and have been greatly influenced by OSC's work.
I recently spent some time looking through Mr. Card's opinion pieces and was startled by his overall style. Though I agree with much he has to say I found his style to be entirely different than the picture I developed from reading his fiction.
He's very clear on his own beliefs but he often applies strawmen and stereotypes to those who disagree with him. The reason this startles me so much is that his writings show a remarkable empathy towards any kind of person with any kind of mentality. I've seen him write liberals, conservatives, and everything in between with a reasonable idea as to what was going on in their heads.
So all other opinions aside I'm sensing a drastic difference between his views of others and how he might portray the same people in his stories. This left me a couple possibilities.
1) The most likely scenario; he's simply such a good writer that he can cast aside bias and get deep into a character.
2) His editorials aren't entirely genuine.
If the latter were true...why? Could he be pulling a Locke/Demosthenes to manipulate people? He's familiar with the kind of thinking that could lead to that. Having an understanding of everyone from the worst kinds of sociopaths to the best sorts of altruists you can assume he's experienced a bit of both extremes either through himself or others.
In my opinion his ideology and style are closer to Locke. Having no percieveable Demosthenes within the confines of his readership we can assume he'd be working from one side, which is probably less effective than the method Ender's siblings used.
Any thoughts? I've noticed I'm not the only one scratching my head over this. Whereas my libertarian side often aligns with OSC's opinions I tend to disagree with him on social issues. I can understand how someone I respect might disagree with me but the way he goes about it baffles me to no end. His opinion pieces often read like this (to me):
posted
In my case, Geoff, my problem with OSC's editorials are less the ideology and more the method. He's deliberately inflammatory.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, that was snarky. My real point is, I've heard one too many people say, "It's impossible that the horrible person who wrote these articles could also have written such beautiful, sympathetic characters, and stories that ring true in my heart!"
To which the obvious answer is, "Then I guess having the opinions expressed in those articles DOESN'T MAKE YOU A HORRIBLE PERSON."
[ April 09, 2005, 06:52 AM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. See, I got a different vibe from this new poster. His or her complaint seemed to be "OSC is a brilliant fiction writer with enormously sympathetic characters, but his essays are often full of generalizations and straw men." And I can't disagree with that. I have trouble understanding it myself; it's hard for me to figure out why OSC writes novels with almost no real villains, but villainizes people in real life whose only mistake appears to be, say, not sharing his opinion on self-esteem (or any other given issue).
I recognize that the Rhino Times is not the most sophisticated audience in the world, but I can't accept that this influences his writing; that's too consciously Demosthenesy for me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow what's with that response Rat? I specifically stated "I can understand how someone I respect might disagree with me but the way he goes about it baffles me to no end."
I disagree with OSC on some things but that's not what I'm adressing here. It's not what he says but how he says it.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gee, I took it as you really wanting OSC to be setting himself us as the next great world leader. "His articles are inflammitory. He must be creating a Demosthenes personna."
I think I'll wander back to my Catholic readings now.
posted
OSC's smart but he's not in the place or the time to become any sort of world leader. In any case he wouldn't do it through his opinion pieces, genuine or not.
But maybe, just maybe his style is better thought out than it seems. I'm open to views but he's commited a few crimes against civil debate, the kind of thing I'd admonish someone on a forum for.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thnk, but I could be wrong about this, that he has admitted that a lot of those peices were written that way to create a diologue about issues, one way or another. I don;t know if they are made up...I believe he says what he thinks....but that he tries to make an impact on people, so he can get a response.
I suspect that he doesn't really care (or even want) if people agree wiht him on each and every topic or point, it is the dialogue that matters to him.
I don't remember where I read him saying that, but I thought I did, somewhere here on Hatrack. I don't want to attribute that to him without being sure though, which is why I qualifiy it.... It might just be the result of may, many discussions about it with others here.
posted
Actually, from what I remember OSC said a while back that he uses the same kind of techniques he believes those who disagree with his political views use. The difference is, if my memory is correct from what he said, they never get called for it. So, he is speaking the language of modern debate.
I don't think I could ever actually find the quote. Seemed a throw away statement from a few years ago. However, I don't think it would be hard to find this view in other statements even if not dealing with his writing style for essays.
posted
Ever since someone called my last landmark a strawman, the term has kind of lost any reference for me. Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stark, a lot of people have commented on the difference between OSC's fiction and his nonfiction to the point that I gather it's something of a sore point for him.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Y'know - people that write for a living tend to use a variety of styles and approaches depending on the audience.
For example: when I write poetry or fiction, I tend to dramatic and flowery.
Wen I write opinion essays, I tend to move toward "shock effect" - usually for the express purpose of jogging a few thought processes along the way.
When I write for work (technical stuff - y'know, contracts, contract-related correspondence, business formal, business casual) I use an entirely different tone and approach. However, sometimes for work, I am writing for the consumer - and that's a different thing again.
People! Writing is a business for some! We do it in all sorts of different ways, and really - there's not a lot of conflict involved. Writers write for their audience, with a purpose or message or story.
I am sure that the contractors I work with would be up in arms if I sent them contracts in flowery, dramatic language. Likewise, the consumers would completely ignore the message, if I wrote it for them in techno-contract babble.
If you don't like it - don't read it! Or try thinking about the intended audience. If stirring the hornets' nest up is the intent, it sure as hell works, no? We have an awful lot of good conversations, yes?
Okay -
*crawls off the soapbox and heads off to Nathan's baseball game*
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Second, if I misread anyone, I'm sorry about that ... you gotta realize, I've been dealing with threads almost exactly like this on a bi-weekly basis, and it's pretty easy to get frustrated that it never seems to go anywhere all that new.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
All good, man....it is a lot more personal to you than to most, we know that.
BTW, I got to meet your dad and mom at Boskone. I drove out there, and had a blast, but for the most part I went there to see him. They were very nice, adn while your dad was busy signing things, your mom pulled me aside for a little bit and we talked for a while. I was glad to meet them, adn I told them you were one of the first people I met here on Hatrack...and it took me about 6 months to find out who you were, because I posted irratically here.
posted
My bad A Rat Named Dog, I didn't mean anything by calling you Rat, just trying to save keystrokes
In any case I'd much rather have some civil discussion about this. The people here would know more about this than anyone so all your opinions make a difference to me. If you feel I'm wrong please tell me and explain why.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though let me quickly stress that I wasn't taking offense at Stark not knowing my real name I was just doing my normal schtick of insisting that people read my screen name and realize that my alter ego's name is obviously Dog and not Rat
I'd hate to think that anyone read my earlier post to mean [in an effete, wounded-dignity type of voice], "What? Don't you know who I AM, young man?" Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, rereading your post, I realize that you were making a different point than the one I somehow picked up (probably by bringing in a bunch of indignation from my experiences with previous posts by other people).
I have found that, being the sort of pathologically sympathetic person who accepts just about everyone else's self-story and assumptions as a given while debating with them, I give a lot of ground in just about every debate I enter. I'll often start out closer to one end of the spectrum, and by the end, be somewhere near the middle.
This isn't a bad thing, as I tend to think that moderate, compromise positions are the most likely to be sane and effective in the real world.
However, I can imagine that a similarly sympathetic person, who believes very strongly in a particular ideal about which he simply cannot bend, might find it naturally difficult to debate his position in the strong terms that he feels are necessary, and might overstate his case in the attempt.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you're getting at Dog. Perhaps I could better explain my confusion. You see, some of my opinions on forms of thinking have actually been altered by OSC's characters before. He really did open up new avenues of thought for me by showing me the kinds of things going on in the heads of people very different from me. Ideologies and mentalities I had previously attributed to different, narrower forms of thinking make much more sense to me now because of it. Take religion for example, Ender's parents reminded me of relatives of mine, very intelligent and skeptical regarding all things except their religion. Whereas I used to think of it as them being stubborn and superstitious I can now appreciate their tradition. I may not agree with their practices but I understand that they, and others, need such things in their lives.
So I wandered into OSC's opinion pieces with the aforementioned experiences only to hit a brick wall. This man who could actually change my opinion by proxy (through his characters) took a sledgehammer approach to debate. I don't know if he's trying to fight fire with fire, or if he's overcompensating, but it seems very incongruous. OSC, in my opinion, could change many more opinions if he stopped to think in terms of who he's trying to influence. There are already enough people out there taking the demagogic approach, I'm guilty of that myself actually. If OSC applied his ability to empathize with others to his opinion pieces he'd sway many, many more people.
And regarding Dog's moniker, you should expect to have to explain that as long as you're going by the name. I looked at it and just chose the first identifying word ('rat') for my response. Personally I wouldn't mind being called Rat if I were you. Being a human named Stark I certainly wouldn't mind being called Human Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unless the whole point was that the Rat didn't wnat to be one, hence the name.
Geoff, I didn't think that was your point at all. As I said, I knew you as Dog for about 6 months before I found out who you were, and when I did it was because someone else e-mailed me to let me know. If you were that self-centered I would have found out a lot sooner, I imagine.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I think I'll wander back to my Catholic readings now.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It might just be the result of may, many discussions about it with others here.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
