posted
The excerpt from the forward in the link that BB posted makes it clear (IMO, at least) that OSC was envisioning this particular piece as a re-telling along the lines of Wicked or The True Story of the Three Little Pigs or other twist of perspective style stories, not as a clarification of what Shakespeare was really saying.
So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Which makes this earlier part more important to dissect, because it's what it was all going off of:
quote:The back of this slim novella boasts that once we have read this "revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch—because now you'll know what's really going on."
posted
So I guess my whole gay/pedophile confusion comes from this in the review:
quote:Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I'm wondering if that line is a direct quote, paraphrased, or if its just the reviewer's interpretation of the scene.
If Hamlet's father is lusting after his fully grown son from the beyond (as ridiculous as that sounds), then I don't buy the "he's not gay he's a pedophile" angle. If that quote is pulled from the reviewer's rear end, then nevermind.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Is Hamlet supposed to be a child in this?
What age do you surmise Hamlet is Kate?
Old enough to have gone away to college unless Card changes that, too. Which would mean that the Ghost wants to "be with him" in hell as an adult not as a child.
It also means his father wants to be with him because he never had the chance to as a child, and more than likely that forbidden fruit element makes him all the more desireable even if he does not normally go for men.
Prisoners who rape other inmates often insist they are not gay, they don't have access to the sexual object they prefer, and so they take what they can get. When I was a electronic print reader, I was in charge of gay publications, and I remember a column where a reader insisted she was gay, was in a happy relationship with her partner, but that her best friend was a male. She indicated that her friend had been hurt repeatedly by bad girls, and that he was now terrified about having sex with a girl, because he had had only terrible experiences with women, but he was not attracted to men.
She talked it over with her partner and apparently they agreed it would be fine if she helped him have his first positive sexual experience. She wasn't attracted to him in that way, she insisted, but she cared about him that she wanted to give him that gift. She was writing the columnist to ask if there was some moral problem with her plan she hadn't considered.
I recall Dan Savage (the prominent gay columnist) indicating that he once had sex with a girl just because he wanted to see if he was truly gay, or because he wanted to see if he could enjoy it. He indicated it was not, and that he was.
Without even discussing those moral issues, it left me with the impression that some people *will* actually engage in sexual activities, including copulation with the gender they are not attracted to.
Hamlet's father deciding he wanted to have sex with Hamlet, remember he still managed to father Hamlet in the first place, when his usual preference is young boys, could easily be an instance of him being curious to try it out, or again him being more attracted to the novelty of sex with Hamlet, than with men in general.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'm so glad the statement I made again and again, that Hamlet's father was a pedophile, not a homosexual is supported by the author himself.
I guess I have to ask, when there's controversy here about linking pedophilia to homosexuality, did you think that to be primarily about old king hamlet being a pedo AND being gay, or did you think it was primarily about elder hamlet's pedo molestation being followed by the victims of that molestation ending up gay?
I'll be honest I'm not parsing this with enough confidence to answer. Could you rephrase?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
dkw, if it is only the marketing then I go back to my earlier:
quote: If it is supposed to be a "spin off" retelling like Wicked that doesn't try to get passed off as a substitute or an introduction to the real Hamlet then my response is merely an eye roll to Card's increasing obsession with the gay. If, as the product description I quoted seems to indicate, it is supposed to clarify, replace, or make accessible Hamlet, it is a violation of the original. Let him keep retconning his own stuff.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: So I guess my whole gay/pedophile confusion comes from this in the review:
quote:Hamlet is damned for all the needless death he inflicts, and Dead Gay Dad will now do gay things to him for the rest of eternity: "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I'm wondering if that line is a direct quote, paraphrased, or if its just the reviewer's interpretation of the scene.
The paragraph in the book is
quote:And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father's spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing. "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I'll be honest I'm not parsing this with enough confidence to answer. Could you rephrase?
Ok, um, I'll try a question. When it was talked about how the book seemed to be 'linking pedophilia with homosexuality,' what do you think that charge relates to, and do you think the charge requires old king hamlet being gay himself?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
It's right after mine, it doesn't synch with any other post on the page, she then goes on to address other posters. So I believe yes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hamlet's father deciding he wanted to have sex with Hamlet, remember he still managed to father Hamlet in the first place, when his usual preference is young boys, could easily be an instance of him being curious to try it out, or again him being more attracted to the novelty of sex with Hamlet, than with men in general.
Whoa. Whoa. Slow down.
He didn't get drunk and make a half-hearted pass at Hamlet. He came back from the friggen dead and arranged an elaborate plot to bed his grown son in the afterlife. He wasn't "curious".
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And finally to the dark shadowy corner where his father's spirit stood, laughing, laughing, laughing. "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be."
I can see this meaning something other then "together", but if it does mean anything but the hip thrusty kind of together, then it is poor writing.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier: Who said anything about half-hearted? I gave several examples of very deliberate sex that does really tell you whether the person is in fact one way or the other. Bear in mind there is no male adult character who Hamlet's father is sleeping with. We know that Hamlet's father wanted to have sex with him a long time but was blocked as it were by his wife.
The fascination could have of course phased out, but it could also vamp up once he died and it would never happen outside an elaborate plot.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Right. Sooooo not gay.
Cool, since to you I'm sputtering nonsense, I'll be happy to stop.
was that post a response to you?
It was. I consider BlackBlade's conjecture about how the King is and (shouldn't be construed as!) gay to be a bit of a stretch.
The BlackBlade doth protest too much, methinks.
While I think you dismiss too much. I'm trying to adequately explain why I believe what I do, I don't appreciate being condescended to, or being told I'm just being wilfully blind.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I do find it a strain to believe that you (or Card) would expect the reader to assume your "straight but with lingering curiosity from when Hamlet was a child" explanation for the Ghost to want to "be with" an adult Hamlet instead of assuming that he is gay. I think that you are reaching.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, do you read the "Welcome to Hell, my beautiful son. At last we'll be together as I always longed for us to be." line as Hamy's daddy wanting to have sex with him?
Cause, wanting (longing) to have sex with members of your own gender kinda makes you gay.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When it was talked about how the book seemed to be 'linking pedophilia with homosexuality,' what do you think that charge relates to, and do you think the charge requires old king hamlet being gay himself?
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't think that I am, I think you are clinging to the less complicated, easier, yet incorrect explanation.
So I guess this is where we leave it.
You are not quite getting my point. Even if your explanation is correct, do you believe that an accomplished author like Card would be unaware of the simpler explanation or that his readers would assume it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, since I have become a target of vilification by the hate groups of the Left ... I underestimated the willingness of the haters to manufacture evidence to convict their supposed enemies.
posted
that's not saying that anyone who disagrees with him is part of those hate groups. predictably, though, he isn't understanding or is purposefully ignoring the reasons why all these (unnamed) groups consider him a homophobic activist. I'd also like to see (but won't see) a list of what he's considering hate groups, because they're probably most or nearly all of them not hate groups.
amused he's literally calling his critics 'haters' though. biggie and tupac send their daps, i'm sure
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he may be in denial. I admit, I have a liberal bias, but.... It's just... DOES HE READ WHAT HE WRITES WHILE WRITING IT?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So the problem is with the marketing, if it is being marketed as something that makes Hamlet accessible rather than as a spin-off story.
Which makes this earlier part more important to dissect, because it's what it was all going off of:
quote:The back of this slim novella boasts that once we have read this "revelatory version of the Hamlet story, Shakespeare's play will be much more fun to watch—because now you'll know what's really going on."
It's worth considering that the back of a book is only slightly more reliable than a random reviewer's interpretation. Unlike the forward, there's a significant chance OSC had no hand in the jacket description at all.
If OSC had said nothing to contradict it, then fine, we assume it is accurate. But since it contradicts his forward, I would say we should logically put more faith in the forward.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's worth considering that the back of a book is only slightly more reliable than a random reviewer's interpretation. Unlike the forward, there's a significant chance OSC had no hand in the jacket description at all.
posted
I've read OSC's clarification and fair enough, perhaps the reviewer came to it far more biased than he/she needed to be but I'm a little nonplussed by this:
quote:I have little interest in a dithering hero; nor am I much inspired by revenge plots. Yet I keep hearing that this is the greatest of them all... So I analyzed the story to see what it would take to make me care about it. "Hamlet's Father" is what I came up with.
Bewildering! Let me find that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern quote (for the uninitiated, Guildenstern is pretending to be Hamlet).
quote:Rosencrantz: Let me get it straight. Your father was king. You were his only son. Your father dies. You are of age. Your uncle becomes king. Guildenstern: Yes. Rosencrantz: Unusual. Guildenstern: Undid me. Rosencrantz: Undeniably. Guildenstern: He slipped in. Rosencrantz: Which reminds me... Guildenstern: Well, it would. Rosencrantz: I don't want to be personal. Guildenstern: Common knowledge. Rosencrantz: Your mother's marriage. Guildenstern: He slipped in. Rosencrantz: His body was still warm! Guildenstern: So was hers. Rosencrantz: Extraordinarily... Guildenstern: Indecent. Rosencrantz: Hasty. Guildenstern: Suspicious. Rosencrantz: Makes you think. Guildenstern: Don't think I haven't. Rosencrantz: And with her husband's brother! Guildenstern: They *were* close. Rosencrantz: She went to him... Guildenstern: Too close. Rosencrantz: For comfort. Guildenstern: It looks bad. Rosencrantz: Adds up. Guildenstern: Incest to adultery. Rosencrantz: Would you go so far? Guildenstern: Never! Rosencrantz: To sum up: your father, whom you love, dies. You are his heir. You come back to find that hardly was the corpse cold before his young brother pops onto his throne and into his sheets, thereby offending both legal and natural practice. Now... why exactly are you behaving in this extraordinary manner? Guildenstern: I can't imagine.
And this doesn't even mention the fact that Hamlet's father was murdered or his immmature infatuation with Ophelia.
OSC says that Hamlet should mean something to him and doesn't, and this is his personal way of getting into the play. But I'm bewildered because what he's written isn't the play. It's as if Romeo and Juliet were murdered, rather than committed suicide. Or Ender actually destroyed the human race instead (wouldn't that be a twist?). Or Harry Potter's parents were alive and well and actually turned out to be Ron and Hermione (a. mazing.). These are stories, and they are certainly related to the originals because they would contain the same events, but they wouldn't really be a way of coming to terms with the original character's motivations.
But that's okay. No rules against it. Just a little bit bewildering that this is what he came out with, of all those possible ways of interacting with the play.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tell you what, if anybody owns the Nook version of Ghost Quartet, share it with me and I'll give y'all my unbiased opinion. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far it appears that not only is it distinctly homophobic, but it is actually covertly homoerotic. It was probably also largely ghostwritten and is in fact a sympathetic analogy to hitler.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: So far it appears that not only is it distinctly homophobic, but it is actually covertly homoerotic. It was probably also largely ghostwritten and is in fact a sympathetic analogy to hitler.
Are you being serious Samp?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today I get to be a messenger, we are out on the town in a mexican bar called oscars pub. Let me relay his words?
"To dissect the frog and kill it dead, these words are in solidarity with the author, as it appears as the initial (op) estimation of the work is in error? Oh god tell me at least blackblade understands the sarcasm."
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the original publication as well - bought since I read about the Subterranean reprint and had never heard of the work. I thought it wasn't as enthralling as work as Card's science fiction and fantasy work - but then, it was Shakespearean (which didn't work for me in Magic Street), a rewrite of Hamlet (which is my favorite Shakespeare play), and in the horror genre (which is one of my least favorite genres). But when I read it, I was surprised I hadn't heard people using it against Card before.
That being said, I don't enjoy the result being Card's wikipedia page being edited to add "homophobe" to the very first sentence. That seems more than a little rude.
I thought the story was "Inventing Lovers on the Phone." This seems to be kind of a theme...
Posts: 428 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
You do recognize that Card wrote that essay decades ago don't you? You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society. Take those comments out of that cultural context and reading them as though they were written yesterday is unfair and rather intellectually dishonest.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that he STILL has that attitude, compared gays to children playing dress up, used that stereotype stating gays are coerced into gayness by molestation and such, I'd say it's not really unfair or intellectually dishonest at all. I'd say folks' disgust with him is rather justified. Plus culture is no excuse for pure ignorance. If folks said stuff like that about Mormons he'd be breathing fire. If he dissed blacks, folks would be crying for him to lose his awards. I'm sorry, but I must politely protest that he really is actually homophobic...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society.
This is a paper-thin defense that reeks of desperation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Quick note: I think the rain taxi reviewer mentioned it, and so did Samp, that the story could be a means of bowdlerizing Hamlet for Mormon audiences. The idea fails on several levels:
1) Mormons don't generally believe that the wicked dead haunt the living the way that Hamlet's father haunts him as described in the passages made public. While the righteous dead are occasionally permitted to visit the living, according to Mormon theology, the evil dead do not. (Take that, Ash!) Or at least, not as far as I know. 1a) Fallen angels, on the other hand... 2) I've read bowdlerizations done by Mormons; they don't deal with heavy subjects like pedophilia or homosexuality, and certainly do not seek those topics out. 3) According to Mormon theology, the dead do not have bodies in the afterlife (at least not until the resurrection). Without a body, they are only desire and thought-- they can take no action. The ideas that Hamlet's father is going to bang Hamlet post-mortem AND that the story is a consistent reflection of Mormon beliefs are mutually exclusive. 4) Further, as far as we know of what the afterlife is like for the wicked, they will not be tortured by anything other than a sense of their own guilt, and how far they've fallen short of the glory of God. (And even that is able to ameliorated) The notes of despair and misery evident in the closing paragraph of Hamlet's Father are pretty much in direct contradiction to what we believe regarding the afterlife.
So...put the thought that this is somehow a disguise for Mormon Sunday School out of your heads. (Hm...actually, no-- I've been to Sunday School recently...)
Put the thought that this somehow represents Mormon theology out of your heads-- it doesn't. Your average Mo would likely be much more comfortable, theologically speaking, with the issues raised in the non-OSC edition.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Advocating the periodic imprisonment of homosexuals who refuse to stay closeted as a guideline to society...frankly I'm not sure if the man is homophobic, but I'm pretty sure the label isn't unfair. It's in the range of rational labels in this case.
You do recognize that Card wrote that essay decades ago don't you? You do recognize that at the time, the attitude he expressed toward gays in that article was more liberal and less "homophobic" than the mean for society. Take those comments out of that cultural context and reading them as though they were written yesterday is unfair and rather intellectually dishonest.
If he had not written a defense of anti-gay laws in recent years, it might be dishonest to link him to articles he wrote decades ago. If he had even ever indicated that he regretted or had revised these past expressed views in recent years, it might be dishonest. I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way, and so I find it more than a little unfair that he can allow them to stand after all these years, and yet should not be held accountable for them now, as if they are still an effective representation of his views.
You are allowed to change your mind, and not have what you have said held against you any longer. But you are not simply allowed to let the horrible things you have said "expire," for the purposes of impeaching your character today, simply because it is no longer acceptable to say the things you once said with impunity. Were he to repudiate these words, I would accept that. I am not aware that he has done so, and to me, that is as good as saying them today.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Were he to repudiate these words, I would accept that. I am not aware that he has done so, and to me, that is as good as saying them today.
posted
I think that, whether or not considering Card a homophobe is legitimate, the wiki edit seems pretty absurd. It's listed between public speaker and essayist, for goodness sake. They should leave it in the section about his personal views.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not aware that he has ever eaten these words in any way
I've read his addendum where he states why it's ridiculous to still judge him based on those words, and that's fair to say.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
