quote:Originally posted by ridenigmadle: So we all love at least most of the works of OSC and most of us are strongly in favor of SSM.
How do you reconcile your belief in equal rights with support for OSC? Unless the accounts I have read are wrong he is rabidly anti-SSM.
I know we can all separate the two but would you still read OSC if he had views that were personally very objectionable to you? (You pick one for yourself, I do not want to create controversy by giving you some potential examples.)
Just a question. Thanks. My first post. I am interested in your views.
Riden
Hey Riden, welcome.
I don't personally reconcile my love of OSC's fiction with his political views. They exist in separate mindspace.
While lately I've been seeing OSC's politics reflected in his fiction, he keeps it pretty low key. The hallmark of his Enderverse novels seems to be empathy for all the characters, perhaps except Achilles. Few are truly evil; most have an internal narrative, to which we have access, that shows them to want to accomplish good things, even when they are deluded about what is good or about the negative side effects. This is honestly what makes OSC a good writer. He's done some good work with world building and plotting and heck, he's good at writing clever banter. But none of that compares to his ability to write sympathetic characters.
But the political essay writing seems to deliberately cast aside any effort to understand or empathize with the opposition. He routinely ascribes hate as a motive where it has not been declared by the actors.
I don't know why he does it. Few believe he's writing as a Demosthenes - I certainly don't. But why would this man so skilled at writing characters treat real life people with far less benefit of the doubt? It's a mystery. Some speculate he's pandering to a wingnut audience in Greensboro...maybe so.
I used to go to lengths to try to defend/rationalize the problems with OSC's political writing but he wore me out. I can't justify it any more.
But I think his fiction is valuable, good, and I don't want him to fade into obscurity as long as he keeps producing more of it. I doubt he impacts political reality to a degree that outweighs the value of his real work. So I am a fan of his fiction and I disapprove of his World Watch politics. Can't reconcile it. Probably won't, unless Card recants his harsh and unfair characterization of many good people. (Even better if he reexamines many of the faulty arguments he launches into the effluether in support of his views.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Samprimary, thanks for a brief insight into the history of some of the past debates. I looked but did not readily see anything on this topic.
This is just a question. Both yours and Rakeesh's answers are the same and maybe that will be enough justification for me in the end.
Having just found out about OSC's views, I am just trying to come to some decision on if I can still support him. I love most of his work (Magic Street and Empire are two glaring exceptions) and I really do not want to give up reading him. I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books. (I realize that that sounds inflammatory but is not meant to be.)
Thanks to both of you and anyone else who chooses to respond to my question.
quote:I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books.
He writes the occasional good book, and you like reading good books?
If you disagree with his politics so much that you feel guilty sending any money his way, why not make a donation equal to the cost of the book to the LGBT organization of your choice? Or do what some of the people on this forum do, and just borrow it from the library?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ridenigmadle: I am looking for some rationalization that will allow me to continue to buy his books.
This confuses me. Are you suggesting that if you disagree with someone, you should no longer have anything to do with them? Because if so, you're in for a lonely, boring life.
It's ok to disagree with one another. Normal, even.
Why wouldn't you read OSC's fiction if you like it? I can't think of any other criterion that matters.
In fact, I disagree with OSC's political views and not only do I recommend his fiction books to science fiction and fantasy fans, but I also recommend his books on writing and his writing classes to aspiring young writers. He is not only a talented fiction writer, but an amazing teacher/public speaker. Plus, he's a very nice person who cares deeply for people and especially for his own family.
Behind the words is a genuine human being, flawed like any other. You get the whole thing as package, take it or leave it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ridenigmadle, I don't think there is anything wrong with enjoying the art of someone with whom you disagree or even someone who is a lousy person. I still enjoy Wagner, for example.
I admit that after reading Mr. Card's essays, I lost my taste for reading his stories. It wasn't any kind of moral decision. I just didn't enjoy them anymore.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read (and own) most of his books and while there is a great deal of entertainment there's also a lot of filler. Though it's worth wading through his lesser efforts to find his moments of brilliance.
Problem is it's hard to keep the fact that he would like to see people like me arrested out of my head...
I really don't know if that's why I don't buy his books anymore or if I just got tired of his writing style.
It *is* tempting to go find ever OSC book in the house, add up the jacket price on all of them and donate that amount to the Human Rights Campaign. That'd be a big donation.
Uh oh... Big Business idea!
Homophobia Offsets! There's millions to be made there!!
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I'm better at compartmentalizing. I listen to Wagner, I watch movies with Vanessa Redgrave and Janeane Garafalo and other people I abominate as people. I love the movie Ransom, not to mention the Lethal Weapon movies, even though I probably wouldn't spit on Mel Gibson if I saw him on fire.
Card's views on homosexuality and government meddling in our lives and the rest... well, I won't express fully how I feel about them here, because it'd be churlish, given that he pays for this board. But I don't see why that should keep me from enjoying his fiction. Except maybe things like Empire, which were overly heavy-handed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
I thought Mr. Card said long ago that ID isn't real science, it's creationism with a scientific disguise.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: kmboots- that's how I was, except for me it was some of his pro-ID statements. Even books I used to enjoy of his are tainted. It's like anything that touches slightly on those issues reminds me of crazy stuff he has said.
I thought Mr. Card said long ago that ID isn't real science, it's creationism with a scientific disguise.
Here is the article. He actually denies that ID is the same as creationism:
quote: At the same time, ID is not "Creationism." Creationism was a ludicrous attempt to twist the physical evidence collected by geologists, paleontologists, and biologists, and pretend that it did not contradict the seven-days-of-creation model of Genesis.
Intelligent Design is not trying to prove the Bible. It starts from the premise that the facts on the ground are correct: It took billions of years to get from the creation of our solar system to the present state of life on Earth. The believers in ID do not deny the evidence -- they insist on it.
Unfortunately this is wrong...ID is definitely creationism with a different label. He continues to be wrong:
quote: However, they also see that the specific hypotheses of Darwinism do not fit the evidence. In short, evolution obviously happened, but Darwinism is not a sufficient explanation of how and why it happened.
So far, I am in complete agreement with them. Darwinism is grossly inadequate to explain very much of what we see; furthermore, most cutting-edge molecular biologists are keenly aware of the enormous burden that any explanation of evolution must bear at the level of the cell.
I'm pretty sure most cutting edge molecular biologists believe in evolution (Darwinism), unless "cutting edge" is defined specifically to exclude Darwinists, which might be the case here for all I know.
His conclusion seems to be that ID is non-scientific and so is Darwinism. He doesn't believe in teaching ID in schools but he doesn't think Darwinism is good science either. (I'm using the term "Darwinism" because he did, not because I think it's a good label. I would say the theory of evolution.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa: Mel Gibson movies, huh? I think ya gotta pay twice for him. Homophobia offsets AND Antisemitism offsets.
Heh. I wasn't even thinking about the homophobia issue. I don't think I've ever heard him express himself on the subject. Not that I have any doubts about what he'd say.
What can I say? I enjoy his manic energy. I never realized it was because he was loopy in real life as well. The last time I read The Stand was after having seen the movie, and all I can say is that casting Jamie Sheridan as Flagg was a big mistake. If you read the descriptions of him in the book, Mel Gibson in his late 20s would have been beyond perfect for the role.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lisa: Mel Gibson movies, huh? I think ya gotta pay twice for him. Homophobia offsets AND Antisemitism offsets.
Heh. I wasn't even thinking about the homophobia issue. I don't think I've ever heard him express himself on the subject. Not that I have any doubts about what he'd say.
What can I say? I enjoy his manic energy. I never realized it was because he was loopy in real life as well. The last time I read The Stand was after having seen the movie, and all I can say is that casting Jamie Sheridan as Flagg was a big mistake. If you read the descriptions of him in the book, Mel Gibson in his late 20s would have been beyond perfect for the role.
Yeah, I love his work too. I just wish he wasn't bug-eyed crazy.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
