Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Orson Scott Card's Superman Story Shelved After Homophobia Controversy

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the hits-you-in-the-childhood dept.

Sci-Fi 1174

An anonymous reader writes "A controversy has been brewing in the comic community for the past month. Orson Scott Card, author of Ender's Game and its many sequels, was tapped to write a story for the new Adventures of Superman comic. The controversy arose because Card has become an outspoken opponent of gay marriage, going so far as to say giving it legal recognition could mark 'the end of democracy in America,' and suggesting 'traditional' married people will eventually have to overthrow the government. Many fans of the series objected, and some retailers decided they wouldn't stock the issue Card's story appears in. Now, the illustrator for Card's story, Chris Sprouse, has walked away from the project, saying he wasn't comfortable with the media surrounding the story. Because of that, Card's story is being replaced in the Adventures of Superman anthology. 'The news has inspired speculation about whether or not this could mean that DC will quietly kill off the controversial Card story entirely, with some suggesting that the story remaining un-illustrated gives the publisher an "out" to avoid any potential breach-of-contract legal response.' Personally, I'm not sure what to think about this. I enjoyed Ender's Game as a kid, and it tarnishes the experience a little to know that its authors can say such hateful things. On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction, and it's unlikely DC would let him put those views into a Superman comic even if he wanted to. It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets? What do you think, Slashdot?"

cancel ×

1174 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about a year ago | (#43085625)

Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful. After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (4, Interesting)

subanark (937286) | about a year ago | (#43085691)

I'm for gay rights. I like Card's stories. I would be fine if he wrote a story that pushed an anti-gay moral... as long as the story is good. It's always good to look at a story from the other end of the spectrum.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | about a year ago | (#43085879)

The interesting thing here is that the story Didn't push his agenda yet his story was still rejected. Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"? Have his opponents not heard of Barbra Streisand?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#43085933)

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (-1, Troll)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43086021)

One sided pig. Tell me, how to argue with you??? Yes, yes, i know, no way.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Interesting)

magarity (164372) | about a year ago | (#43086057)

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?

No, what would lend credence to his claim would be a US state enacting a same-sex marriage law without the necessary majority support from elected representatives.

What about when the opposite happens; when the majority of state voters decide to not allow same sex marriage but the unelected judiciary orders it allowed anyway? Is that a failure of democracy?

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

LurkerXXX (667952) | about a year ago | (#43086007)

Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"

No, because the government didn't stop him from publishing anything. He's still got his right to vote for whatever/whoever he wants to in elections. He's free to say whatever idiotic things he wants. He's free to submit his work to whatever publisher he wants. No part of democracy is harmed.

The market has spoken and individuals have spoken that they don't want to deal with a bigoted ass.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Informative)

bigjarom (950328) | about a year ago | (#43085715)

Agreed that he's overrated in general, but the original Ender novel is excellent. That being said, I have read about 20 of his books, and a funny thing is that Card's personal view are not at all evident in most of his books. I know he's a Mormon and everything, but the characters and situations in his stories often convey a very progressive and rational outlook on the universe.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (0, Troll)

jlechem (613317) | about a year ago | (#43085893)

I couldn't disagree more, one of his most popular series outside of Ender is pretty much a straight rip off of the Book Of Mormon. And for those who don't know that is the main religious text of his faith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He is an outspoken douchebag verbally and in writing and I couldn't be more glad to see his work not get published,

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43085911)

Are you sure you read 20? I was introduced to them by a friend, and I read the first when the others had long since been out. On reading one of the sequels, I asked my friend if Card was a religious nut. He didn't know. I found it obvious from Speaker for the Dead (or one of the other sequels) that he had serious religious issues. It took me all of 2 of his books to come to that conclusion, and reading about him in more detail confirmed it. I thought it obvious, and detracted from his stories.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (1)

bigjarom (950328) | about a year ago | (#43086103)

Let me clarify a bit. I was raised in a very conservative Mormon home. I am very the opposite of that now. So I may be judging him through a different lens than some people. As far as 20 books: I've the whole Ender series, the whole Alvin Maker series, About half of the Homecoming series, and 4 or five others.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085969)

Hell, the Homebound series is basically a port of a exodus style story to scifi. And it was very good at that. He even had a gay character in that one that wasn't demonized (though ended up in a weird pseudoMarriage to a woman, but when you need to populate a planet, you take one (actually 2) for the team.)

If we boycotted fiction over the creator's beliefs, then we wouldn't have mickey mouse, as Disney was an AntiSemite.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085731)

Card's view is not an "unpopular" one; it is discriminatory. Unfortunately, it is much TOO popular.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085757)

Always thought he was overrated, but nonetheless I still think this is BS. I've always believed in separating the artist from the art. And I honestly don't give a rat's ass about the politics or social views of any given writer. Applying litmus tests like this is just the kind of thing that can come back and bite you in the ass if you're not careful.

The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.

After all, you never know when YOUR views may become the unpopular ones.

This isn't Star Wars versus Star Trek. This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision. Two people are in love and somehow that jumps across time and space and negatively affects you? Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43086015)

The problem is that he's using his fame achieved from his art to gain a larger audience for his message. That's when it's time to start to actively deny him his fame.

Do you say this when it is a Hollywood celebrity that is saying something you agree with, or is using fame as a soapbox allowed for people you agree with but not for others?

This is something that is rapidly becoming a fundamentally ethically right and wrong decision.

Applying the word "marriage" to a couple is not an ethical issue. Who cares if you call a couple married or not? Why is being called "married" becoming such a crisis? Isn't the real issue the legal status, which can exist without marriage just as easily as with?

Do us all a favor and go take a flying fuck off a bridge.

Oh, sorry, I guess that answers that question. Your way or death.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (1)

thesameguy (1047504) | about a year ago | (#43086101)

Yes, exactly that. The most effective way I can fight his message is to not fund him, so good author or not he's not getting any of my money.

We've got a local, family-owned chain here ("Leatherby’s Family Creamery") that is probably one of the best places to get ice cream. Then a couple years back it came out they put a lot of money into Prop 8. I was horrified to know my money was connected to that effort and I haven't been back since.

It's one thing for a business to lobby for laws that affect the business - maybe not a good thing, but a reasonable and expected thing. It's an entirely different for a business to lobby for things that don't even remotely affect it. Unfortunately for Card, he is his business and there really isn't anything separating the two.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085767)

I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. I'm not fine with people trying to oppress me.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085769)

If he had kept his hate to himself, no one would have minded. However, I'm not going to send my hard earned money to someone that's going to use that money to help policies that are detrimental to my friends and loved ones. The moment they start spouting their views publicly and using their position to promote hateful points of view is the moment I stop separating artist from art.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (1)

Daetrin (576516) | about a year ago | (#43085809)

I'm quite willing to separate the artist from the art, as long as the artist doesn't insist on using the fame and money that comes with the success of their art to promote political causes i strongly disagree with. If an artist chooses to loudly proclaim their politics and donate money to political causes they're going to have to accept that people are going to judge them based on it and it may very well have an effect on their sales.

Does it suck that they can't be both politicians and artists at the same time without catching some flak for it? A little. But from time to time everyone has to make choices about what they really want out of life because various desires conflict with each other. Card made his choice, and he has to live with the consequences. If i am ever lucky enough to become a famous artist (fat chance, but still) then i will also get to choose between keeping my voice down about my politics or accepting that i would likely be boycotted by the religious right. And you know what? I'd consider myself damn lucky to be in the position where i was faced with that dilemma.

There are a number of artists who i happen to know have political views i disagree with (not to mention an unknown number more who've been quiet enough that i don't even know i disagree with them) but because they don't push those views on others, either in their art or in public forums, i still purchase and enjoy their art.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (2)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year ago | (#43085931)

Exactly so. Many singers I like were/are gay, and many singers I like were/are anti-gay. I don't care about their views as long as I appreciate their art, or even if I dislike their art, I still don't care :)

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086039)

Let us take it to the extreme then, and godwin this thread. If Hitler were still alive, and put out the best damn Superman comic book ever, and you bought it, you can try and justify it any way you want, but fact is, you are giving money to Hitler.

Re:I'm not even a fan, but (5, Insightful)

sehlat (180760) | about a year ago | (#43086129)

"... separating the artist from the art" is excellent in theory, but a collapsium-plated bitch in practice.

I once had an email exchange with S. M. Stirling about piracy wherein the sequence went:

He: "The police should have the right to search everyone's hard drive over the net without a warrant and erase anything they deem suspicious. Anybody who objects to this is a thief or thief wannabe."

Me: "I object to that, and aren't you being rather harsh toward someone who has bought copies of everything you've ever written?"

He: "Big deal. All the royalties I've gotten from you wouldn't even take me out to dinner at my favorite restaurant."

I haven't been able to bring myself to read his stuff since, and the formerly-complete collection became pulp fiction.

As I said, separating the artist from the art sounds simple but isn't.

An Old Discussion (5, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about a year ago | (#43085669)

On the other hand, Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction,

Well, I can think of four or five times this has come up on Slashdot. Here's one [slashdot.org] and another [slashdot.org] . And from that comment by MozeeToby:

It isn't so much about 'preachy-ness' as it is about 'propaganda-ness'. In the Shadow series, for instance, we have the homosexual character of Anton. He is not in any way evil, Card doesn't ask us to fear or hate him as you might expect from a right wing writer.

Instead (and arguably worse), when we are first introduced to Anton we are asked to pity him. He is given a ludicrously strong cognitive dissonance to ham handedly symbolize the dissonance that Card assumes the man must have because of his lifestyle. He is utterly lonely and unhappy, and it is heavily implied that he has considered suicide as the only option to end his suffering.

Later in the story, Anton has *gasp* married. No, not to a man, but to a woman. In fact he is going to be a father. He is happy, talkative, and engaging. He mentions in passing that his homosexual tendancies have made his marriage harder but that with work they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.

In my opinion, this is a more disgusting attack on gay rights than any violent diatrabe could ever be.

That probably bears repeating to address your "keeps it out of his fiction" comment.

Frankly, I've given up on Card. I've been chided about this very issue before on Slashdot [slashdot.org] (several times actually) but I stand by my opinion: You're free to say or believe in anything you want. But if you're an actor, author, musician, developer, athlete or any profession that tries to use their own popularity to further a belief or statement that I find reprehensible, I will actively and vocally make it known that I will no longer patronize you with funds or admiration.

I wish him the best of luck as one human being to another but I will not spend one more cent to him if he's going to use his position as an author to vocally oppose two people of the same sex who are in love with each other. If you think I'm wrong in doing this, then ask yourself this simple question: Would he have such a large podium if he wasn't a renowned author? The answer is: No, he would just be another raving lunatic. So I'm no longer giving him the reverence or publicity that a world renowned author should have.

Boggles my goddamned mind that he could write wonderful novels decrying xenocide and turn around and say such crap. Once again the power of religion blasts the doors right off of any sensible logic.

Re:An Old Discussion (3, Interesting)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year ago | (#43085851)

Meh, the woman was a lesbian and they have an "understanding" about "business trips", "poker nights with the guys", "lacrosse trips", and "separate bedrooms".

Re:An Old Discussion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085871)

A question, then: is it possible for a famous person to openly state a viewpoint without "using their own popularity" to further said viewpoint? How might someone in such a position go about doing that? Or should they simply be silenced, for fear of their fame leading people to agree with them?

Re:An Old Discussion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086081)

They should feel perfectly fine with espousing their viewpoint, but they should accept that their popularity has an amplifying effect. If what they say is stupid and bigoted (a la OSC or Jenny McCarthy), then they should expect a backlash proportionate to their popularity. This obviously works for brilliant things too: they can expect a positive response proportionate to their popularity.

Similarly, if I say something stupid or bigoted, then I should reasonably expect a backlash proportionate to my popularity. i.e., zero. Just as if I say something brilliant.

Re:An Old Discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086107)

Sorry, meant "silent", not "silenced".

Re:An Old Discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086109)

Nope, if you're famous you're supposed to be silent and your popularity is at stake should you say anything that anybody doesn't agree with.

Re:An Old Discussion (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43085907)

Good for you. But, i wonder, if you are somehow trying to deny the same right to the ones that agree with Scott's believe? Yes? Why? What the frack man, why the hate!!!!

Re:An Old Discussion (1)

polyphemus (473112) | about a year ago | (#43085957)

My sentiments are the same. I loved Ender's Game, but I see his morality infiltrate his writing in everything else of his that I've read (Speaker, Shadow, and a prequel about the parents). It's ubiquitous, and it makes his writing worse. I can't read his writing anymore.

Re:An Old Discussion (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43085979)

Later in the story, Anton has *gasp* married. No, not to a man, but to a woman. In fact he is going to be a father. He is happy, talkative, and engaging. He mentions in passing that his homosexual tendancies have made his marriage harder but that with work they are able to get through it and live a full and happy life.

That is actually mainstream thought within religion-based anti-gay groups. It is their implementation of "hate the sin, love the sinner" - it is OK to be gay as long as you never act on it. Kind of like staying celibate until marriage except you never get married.

There are a lot of religious people trying to live that way - it comes down to a choice for them, they can repress their sexuality and live in a supportive community or they can accept their sexuality and be cast out all alone. For them they do not perceive it as a bunch of sanctimonious jerks repressing them, instead it is a choice between keeping the life they've spent decades building or giving that up for what may or may not turn out to be a life with more inner peace. It is not an easy choice - both options have major pros and cons.

I haven't read much, if any, of Card's books in the last two decades, so I don't really know any of the context of this Anton character. But I have to wonder if he is at least a little bit autobiographical - expressing an ideal that Card is trying to live up to himself.

Re:An Old Discussion (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086083)

Sadly, I have to agree that this stance wipes out any respect I had for him, and makes his previous works appear in a much different light now: they now seem hypocritical - almost to the point of ridiculousness, knowing that for all he has previously written - he can say (and believe) in such inequality.

Hey, Orson (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085671)

The '80s called, they want their one-hit-wonder bowling-ball-headed Mormon idiot back.

Re:Hey, Orson (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085823)

But they already have Romney. We're just borrowing his body.

Ace & Gary? (2)

AndyVM (2857721) | about a year ago | (#43085677)

Superman has options...

This is just stupid. (3, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#43085703)

I'm a Christian, but the US is in no way a Christain nation. For what it;s worth, I have no trouble with gays except for the "ick" factor; what you do is none of my business. Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.

I wouldn't be aghast if Richard Dawkins penned it, why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy? He's entitled to his opinion. This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.

Re:This is just stupid. (4, Insightful)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year ago | (#43085783)

Do you understand what an anti-gay witch hunt looks like?

A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it. Not even if they do so in an organized fashion.

Re:This is just stupid. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085927)

It is, however, a witch-hunt all the same. By encouraging others not to buy products by a person due to his beliefs (and such encouragement is inherent in the nature of an organized boycott; it is, after all, what a boycott is), you are essentially calling for that person to be rendered de facto unemployable. One can argue that this is sometimes justified, but can a person's beliefs really be considered such a situation?

Re:This is just stupid. (1)

tylikcat (1578365) | about a year ago | (#43086025)

Do you really see this as making him unpublishable in any larger sense? He's been a very successful author. It seems likely he will continue to do so.

Just not putting words in the mouth of that particular American icon.

Do YOU understand? (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year ago | (#43086141)

A bunch of people saying, in effect, "We are so deeply uncomfortable with the loudly expressed policial views of this author that we won't buy work written by him," is not it.

And if the same people follow whatever potential work he might have and try to kill off his ability to do any writing at all over time?

Looks like an irrational with-hunt to me (the irrationality of it is that his actual story had nothing to do with gay marriage).

I have a number of gay/lesbian friends, have even been part of some ceremonies, but I see no reason why OSC should be drummed out of writing because of what he believes. If it enters the work at all, sure then I can see a basis for complaint. It's when they attack him just for being him I have an issue.

Re:This is just stupid. (2)

Guspaz (556486) | about a year ago | (#43085877)

There is a big difference between somebody advocating against believing in something like Richard Dawkins does, and somebody advocating active persecution of people because they're different like Card does.

Re:This is just stupid. (1, Flamebait)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about a year ago | (#43085955)

Perhaps you'd understand a bit better if he'd had said the same thing about having a "nagger as a president"?
What you've really said is that in your mind gays don't deserve any show of support against DISCRIMINATION BY RABID BIGGOTS.

Funny how Card can go on about the injustice of seing Enders Game constantly being put on banned book lists by "Mormon hating Christian Fundies" but is such an open and vocal biggotry against homosexuals.

Frankly, Card can go fuck himself. Calling for the overthrow of the government to force biggotry on all of us, is just plain fascist.
I think we should imprison this asshole for sedition.

UNtil now I was looking forward to seeing the upcoming Enders Game movie - now the idea makes me feel sick.
I don't want to support the works of a vocal biggot who is calling for waging war on the American Government and people who want an open and free society.

Re:This is just stupid. (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | about a year ago | (#43086097)

Perhaps you'd understand a bit better if he'd had said the same thing about having a "nagger as a president"?

Unfortunately, Hillary lost the nomination. But Palin had much worse things said about her, so maybe some people do understand.

Re:This is just stupid. (1)

beowolfschaefer (2451564) | about a year ago | (#43085989)

If this was DC applying a litmus test to their authors I might agree with you but this is a case of an artist and independently owned retailers making their opposition known. If Card is free to his views then so are they and they are free to express that.

Re:This is just stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085995)

OSC is being told that publicly espousing his moronic politics and religion is too much for the customers of DC.

Gays are actively being murdered because they're gay.

Do you see the difference? If you don't, then your brand of Christianity is not my brand.

You're a Top Notch Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086031)

This looks like a McCarthy-style witch hunt, back in the day that gays had to hide. If I were gay, I'd be as outraged that this guy would be treated like gays used to be.

What the fuck are you talking about? Speech combating speech is not a witch hunt. The populace each deciding not to patronize an artist is not the same as a top down government action of black listing and destroying the lives -- even imprisoning or fining -- other people for their beliefs. Jesus Fucking Christ pull your head out of your ass. How'd you like that sin, you "Christian"?

Apples to Oranges?

Re:This is just stupid. (4, Insightful)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about a year ago | (#43086055)

why is someone so up in arms about an openly anti-gay guy?

Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want black people to be free?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly doesn't want women to be able to vote?
Why is someone so up in arms about a guy who openly advocates against interracial marriage?

The times, my friend, they are a-changing. Gay rights is a civil rights issue, plain and simple. The question is whether or not it is acceptable for society to discriminate against gay people. A quick glance back at history will tell you which side is going to be the winning side, in case you want to ignore the obvious trend in public polling. Card is actively advocating in favor of discrimination, and that's what people have a problem with. I don't need to claim to be a fan of Queen or have a black friend to be in favor of civil rights, regardless of which group we're talking about. I'm in favor of civil rights because it is objectively the morally right thing to do. So, naturally, I have a problem with people who openly advocate against the right thing to do.

Respect Carries more weight (1)

kawabago (551139) | about a year ago | (#43086061)

When someone is respected for something in society their opinion carries more weight. People who have never knowingly met a gay person may be swayed by his opinion. Hate speech is repeated again and again continuing and spreading it like a cancer across society. Not only that but he is also wrong about the effects of gay marriage. We've had gay marriage in Canada for several years now and the effects have all been positive. Card is a bigoted, ignorant, self important asshole who deserves everything bad that happens to him.

Re:This is just stupid. (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about a year ago | (#43086117)

Hell, I'm a fan of Queen. I'm friends with gays, atheists, hell, at least one murderer.

One of these is not like the others.

Card's gone over the deep end (4, Interesting)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43085705)

I always applauded him for being able to keep his personal brand of crazy out of it novels - it surprised me to learn how batshit insane he was, his novels always struck me as supremely rational. I did feel conflicted - on one hand, I didn't want to give monetary support to someone with such disgusting ideas, but on the other hand, I *did* want to support someone who wrote such beautiful stories.

Then I read his Empire - guess he was just saving up all his crazy for that book. I haven't read its sequel; I hear it's even worse. I haven't bought anything from him since then. I don't feel conflicted anymore.

Re:Card's gone over the deep end (1)

Sperbels (1008585) | about a year ago | (#43085837)

Yeah, Empire was pretty bad. His true colors really shined through in that one. I lost interest in OSC after that.

Good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085719)

'nuff said.

OSC has the right to say what he wants (5, Insightful)

MadMike32 (1361741) | about a year ago | (#43085729)

But every artist's marketability is, to a greater or lesser degree, dependent upon his or her popularity. The consumers of his product have every right to express their displeasure by boycotting his work or any collective work to which he contributes.

Re:OSC has the right to say what he wants (1)

djlemma (1053860) | about a year ago | (#43085833)

Well phrased- I was trying to come up with a response similar to this....

Another one for the fire (-1, Flamebait)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#43085743)

Burn him. We need to get rid of these damaged minds.

Climate change skeptics too. Line them up.

Gun owners as well.

Racists.

We're going to build some big fires fixing this country.

Re:Another one for the fire (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43085961)

Erh... you ARE aware that those lines sound an awful lot like what we get to hear from anti-gay and racist people? Burn them, we have to clean up the country...

Nonemaibiznass (2)

kd4zqe (587495) | about a year ago | (#43085751)

I liked Ender's Game and it's sequels. He addressed infidelity and all kinds of political angles. As for voting with my wallet, It's not really my business what he thinks. I'll vote with my actual vote in national elections. As long as his books are good, I'll keep reading them. As narrow minded as I feel his thoughts may be, I support the U.S. Constitution, and thus his right to speak his mind. that said, I also feel he's wrong, as per the Constitution, all should be equal, regardless of sexual orientation. The day his books turn into his own personal propaganda machine is the day I cease to read his material.

Uh .. wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085761)

"Card seems to have kept his personal views out of his fiction", says the submitter. Obviously, said submitter has never read Card's "Homecoming" saga. Oh, look, a guy who happens to be gay manages to put aside his distaste for heterosexual sex to promulgate the species. (It's been a long time since I read the books, so I may be misremembering the exact detail. Handwave, handwave.)

The rule of thumb, where Card's writing is concerned, is to take the first two or three books in the series, and stop. Beyond that point, they invariably devolve into thinly veiled Mormon preaching.

I stopped buying his books when he started being an out-and-out bigot; it doesn't affect me, but it does affect my brother (who came out of the closet a few years ago), and I flat out refuse to support anybody who is that intolerant. In exactly the same way, I would refuse to buy any comic where the story was written by Card.

Not surprising (2)

ADRA (37398) | about a year ago | (#43085773)

A little off topic, but in the vein of card's character, I really enjoyed ender's game and speaker for the dead, but I was absolutely sucker punched at how fast you can fuck over your audience after reading Xenocide and Ender's Children.. The very outspoken religious dogma in Xenocide made me loose all faith in Card's cred for interesting and objective sci-fi writing... which was a shame, because I actually considered Speaker to be one of the better approaches to religion as a facet of the story without being preachy... oh well.

Boycott is a valid choice. (2)

couchslug (175151) | about a year ago | (#43085775)

If I knew a person was my enemy I would not enrich them by buying their works.

That would be stupid, particularly for trifles such as comics.

Re:Boycott is a valid choice. (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43085983)

What is wrong with one man having many women? Or one woman having many man? Illegal you say? You discriminating pig, how dare you!!!

Re:Boycott is a valid choice. (4, Insightful)

Stormthirst (66538) | about a year ago | (#43086027)

What *is* wrong with polygamy. Provided everyone is in agreement/consenting, and no one is cheating on anyone else?

Individual or company, same difference (1)

Mal-2 (675116) | about a year ago | (#43085785)

Was it wrong for people to boycott Chick-fil-A over their disagreement with his views? How about Papa John's? Is it wrong that I refuse to contribute to Scientology, even indirectly, by knowingly doing business with their members and businesses? (For example, refusing to buy Pulp Fiction as a gift for someone even though it is what they specifically requested.)

There is nothing wrong with saying "I disagree with you and do not wish to have MY money (and tacit approval) used to further causes I disagree with".

The Secret (-1, Troll)

Mullen (14656) | about a year ago | (#43085791)

Anyone who is that homophobic is really a secretly self-hating homosexual.

Re:The Secret (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086047)

Slashdot was supposed to be a site for nerds, not idiots.

Card is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085801)

Democracy in America is killed by unbridled capitalism and crony politics not gay marriage.

Let's jump ahead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085813)

While the summary does a great job of saying pretty much everything that needs to be said -- indeed, everything that has already been said elsewhere on the 'net -- I'd like to add one bit:

"On the fourth hand, while it's perfectly fine to vote with your wallets and campaign for your causes against his, let's agree that having an unpopular opinion doesn't mean you should for some reason lose the right to believe it, the right to speak it, the right campaign for it, or in general be locked in a cage until you can be burned at the stake."

I realize this is a touchy subject for most, and while you're perfectly within your rights to say things like, "OSC should be driven out into the wilderness and shot," I really have to worry about our society if a large number of people actually believe that.

Re:Let's jump ahead. (1)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year ago | (#43086035)

The difference is that people don't say it about OSC. It's him saying it about other people. The crazy bastard really thinks that armed revolution is an appropriate response to the legalization of gay marriage, apparently.

Re:Let's jump ahead. (1)

neminem (561346) | about a year ago | (#43086085)

While I certainly do agree that one should have the right to believe and speak whatever they want (discluding fire-in-theater situations, etc.), I'm not quite so convinced they should have the right to outright *campaign*, in the political sense, for it. That would imply they could *win*. I mean, I guess you could argue they could feel free to try to campaign for something that will have no chance? But that's the worry - it might. I mean, slavery was legal for a long time. Overt racism was legal for much longer. If some guy wanted to pass a law in a town saying "murder all the gays", and the town voted yes, it should still not be legal.

I do agree, though, people should not be shot merely for having disgusting views - they should be merely ridiculed. And potentially boycotted, if it gets that bad.

On the third hand? (1)

hpycmprok (219527) | about a year ago | (#43085821)

On the third hand,

Shouldn't that be "on the gripping hand"?

Re:On the third hand? (1)

Lohrno (670867) | about a year ago | (#43086005)

Hah! That's Larry Niven though.

Simple solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085827)

Card is a talented author, despite his flaws. But there is no need for us to lose his creative powers just because of his hateful thoughts and words. Simply send him to the Ministry of Love and a complete cure is extremely likely.

Frack you (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43085847)

I love Orson Scott's books, i read them, i will read them, even if he is a mass murderer. And convicted. And put in jail. That does not change the fact that his books are soo good. Unlike you, man, i do distinguish between author' believes and the quality of his work.

As a pro-gay rights person... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085853)

I implore you all not to pull a "chik-fil-a" again. Your intolerance of his views may backfire on you and make him more profitable than he ever would have been otherwise.

Honestly (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085857)

What should I care about faggots so much?

I just want to read a story, not to have to keep everything politically correct for the butthurt crackers, niggers, spicks, kikes, nips, chinks, and the rest of the whining homos out there.

Just can't recommend him to people. (1)

Sowelu (713889) | about a year ago | (#43085867)

Before the Internet was a big thing, I happily recommended his books to people. 'Pastwatch' is still one of my favorite books ever. Unfortunately, when I recommend him to people now, they inevitably trip over his *disgusting* hateful personal editorials. It's beyond mere political opinion--he goes on the warpath and makes it really, really personal. Some of his editorials really go over the sanity cliff too, we're talking Timecube-type stuff. It could be funny but when it's pointed at you or your friends, and he's trying to incite real political activism against you, the humor is lost.

Because of how distasteful that stuff is, I can't recommend him anymore. After all, his hate is just one click away through the search engine of your choice.

Freedom to choose (1)

nephilimsd (936642) | about a year ago | (#43085869)

From the summary, "It's a free country; people are free to believe stupid things. On the third hand, he is actively advocating his views outside his fiction, and what better way is there for readers to fight back than organizing a boycott and voting with their wallets?" These two ideas are not exclusive, or even different sides of the same coin. These are the same side of the same coin. A writer is free to believe "stupid" things, and we are free not to buy things he is associated with because we believe his views are wrong. Companies are free to disassociate with him because his views are affecting their business, and he is free to change his views. We are all also free to not do those things.

Super-PC Man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085873)

That is not PC as in Personal Computer, but Politically Correct, and its a yet-to-be-written series that maybe the author of this post could be the main protagonist of. This would article gives of so much PC-stink I have to pinch my nose. Bleh. I loved Enders Game as a kid, and I would love to read Card's take on Superman. If you would rather go sit in a corner and hulk about Card not agreeing with you on gay marriage then do so, I seriously could care less.

Re:Super-PC Man! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086131)

You could care less? That means you care some already which from the context of the rest of the post is not what you mean.

What you mean is you could NOT care less - as in your total sum of care is 0 and it can't go into the negative. English - learn it MOFO

I fail to see the connection (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085875)

I fail to see the connection between the author's views, and the stories he writes. If this controversial topic isn't a topic of his works, then there is no reason to boycott them. One of the great things about this country is that we can disagree on various issues, and still conduct business normally. Just because a roofer may be homosexual, doesn't mean I won't hire him to fix the roof on my home. In the same vein, I may think that Tom Cruise is off his rocker, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a movie that he stars in. If I disagrees with the political views of a company's CEO, that doesn't mean I can't eat the food at those restaurants.

Of course, some issues will preclude certain products from being offered from certain retailers, but those are related to the product and not the producer. 50 Shades of Grey doesn't belong in a bookstore that caters exclusively to children, or Christians. A hot dog vendor shouldn't be setting up a stand outside a convention for vegans. The difference here is that the product targets a certain consumer, but the views of the product's producer are irrelevant.

Dixie Chicks (1)

Experiment 626 (698257) | about a year ago | (#43085901)

This kind of thing happens whenever you have an opinionated celebrity with controversial views that are at odds with a lot of their fan base. What's more interesting is watching to see how people's support of free speech is tied to how well the speech lines up with their own political views. Of course there is also something to be said for artists sticking to being known for their creative works and not for their extreme political stances.

Re:Dixie Chicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086045)

But OSC's political stance in this case is not "extreme"; it's the mainstream American view.

There is a line and Card crossed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085909)

Sure, you can say whatever you want, and I don't think consumers and businesses should boycott everyone with any different political opinion. That's a good principle and it fosters a free and open society.

But there are limits. When someone starts loudly and clearly advocating the repression of minorities, that runs counter to the principles of a free and open society. Even if they don't violate any laws, consumers and businesses are not only within their rights to boycott, but their boycotts are beneficial to society as a whole.

Also, there's an annoying media bias that favors people who say ridiculous and outrageous (and frequently flat-out wrong) things. The sooner we shut them up, the sooner the media can focus their limited resources on people who aren't raving asshats, and that also benefits society as a whole.

Freedom works both ways (5, Insightful)

ravenscar (1662985) | about a year ago | (#43085913)

He's free to say what he wants. I'm free to choose to boycott his work. His publisher is free to choose not to publish his work. His illustrator is free not to work with him. I'm sick and tired of people acting like free speech means speech without consequences. It doesn't. The government can't throw you in jail or treat you differently because of what you say (some exceptions to that rule of course), but everyone else is free to react as they see fit (within standard legal boundaries).

Now, one could argue that publishers have some sort of moral obligation to publish things regardless of controversy, but that's a different argument entirely.

It's a free country... (4, Insightful)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#43085917)

And Card is allowed to believe and say what he wants.

Similarly, Sprouse is allowed to refuse to work with Card. Retailers are allowed to refuse to stock Card's work. DC is allowed to refuse Card's story. And comic book buyers are allowed to refuse to buy stuff by him.
Boycotts are not an attack on your freedom - they're someone else getting to also exercise their freedom.

This is Shadow Complex all over again (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | about a year ago | (#43085923)

and people wanting to boycott a game that arguably he had peripherally worked on. I think Card's Ender series has gone on too long but that doesn't change my opinion that I would be willing to read the fiction he writes.. it's hardly that objectionable (Anton aside). His views aren't effusive throughout his writing. Not historically and I doubt in this instance.

Stuff that matters. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085925)

I meant "Stuff that matters."

My 2 cents (2)

TsuruchiBrian (2731979) | about a year ago | (#43085939)

We simply need to acknowledge that it is indeed possible for unlikable people to make likeable art. I never read Ender's Game, but I've heard it's good. Every person is free to decide for themselves if they are comfortable with consuming art, food, inventions, etc from people who's views you oppose. As long as there is no coercion, I don't see a problem, with Card expressing anti-gay views in a comic book (not that he is currently doing that). I don't see a problem with consumers boycotting his art. I don't see a problem with pro gay rights consumers buying his art. The only thing I have a problem with is anything that actually limits the rights of any people unjustly (straight or gay). Freedom to express arguments against gay rights is protected under free speech, and in my view actually helps society move forward through public discourse. If there is ever a compelling reason to oppose gay rights, I might even be convinced to oppose them, but the fact that no good reason has been presented in the free market of ideas says something about the possibility that a good actually argument exists.

Also, Card is right about gay rights being in opposition to democracy, but this is a good thing. The USA is not *just* a democracy. The democracy of Americans is limited by the constitution. We are not able to vote to re-establish slavery if 51% of the population supports it. The constitution is a check on democracy. Democracy is only one of the ingredients of a free society. And an excess of democracy can be a bad thing. Democracy alone is just mob rule.

Who's the bigot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43085951)

I didn't realize everyone who opposed gay marriage was "stupid" and "hateful". In the 2008 election, the official Obama platform was support for civil unions for gay couples (with equal rights) but not marriage. I guess that makes the President stupid and hateful.

In the U.S., we have many legal restrictions on marriage--for example, you can't legally marry a close relative, and you can't legally marry more than one spouse. In most states, you also can't legally marry a member of the same sex. Some of these types of marriages are legal in countries outside the U.S. (many countries allow polygamy, many others allow gay marriage).

Does that make the person who argues for or against polygamy, or for against gay marriage, "stupid"? Does it make them "hateful"? Who's the bigot here?

I call bullshit. (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#43085973)

Whoever thinks Card's stories aren't heavily saturated with his moral and religious views just didn't notice because they happened to agree with all the views in the one or two of his books they actually read. If you actually read some of his earlier work [wikipedia.org] you may actually realize he's got pretty standard traditional Mormon beliefs. That he's opposed to gay marriage shouldn't suprise anyone actually paying attention.

Don't get me wrong, Card is one of my favorite authors and I even really liked The Worthing Saga and would recommend that everyone read it. But I caveat that with a warning; unless you are also a Mormon traditionalist like he is, you may, like, me, also find yourself afterwards often sitting alone in a room arguing with an imaginary Orson Scott Card in your head.

I care where I spend my money (1)

DogDude (805747) | about a year ago | (#43085991)

Unlike most people, I'm very careful how and where I spend my money. I don't spend money at big box stores that are a blight on my community. I don't spend money with online retailers that indirectly damage my local community. I don't spend money at businesses that use their profits to influence our government in ways I don't like. I don't spend money buying media from people that, like Orson Scott Card, actively want to cause harm to innocent people.

It's like voting. Sure, my one vote or my $20 not spent on a book doesn't make that much of a difference, but it's all I can do, and if many people did the same, it'd have a great impact. And, not to mention, I sleep well knowing that I do all that I can to make the world a little bit better.

History says... (1)

weilawei (897823) | about a year ago | (#43085999)

We've been here before. See Theodor Seuss Geisel [wikipedia.org] . I liked Dr. Seuss as a child, but he kept his views mostly to himself (as I remember it) and yet, could be intensely racist. OSC has the same sort of thing going, albeit on a different topic. I'll decline to pass judgement beyond refusing to give them my money once aware of their views. Free speech isn't really free if you censor people you disagree with (but nobody is under any obligation to give you money or spend theirs to publish you).

Bunch of PC bitch hypocrites (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086049)

If I felt the urge to boycott artists for their personal views I'd have maybe three MP3s to enjoy, and four five minute clips from two movies.

Why don't all of you hypersensitive little panty waists quit looking for a witch to burn and just recognize a work of art for what it is: a work of art. Evaluate it on its merits and if it itself doesn't offend you, then shut the fuck up. Talent is talent, regardless of whether or not you dislike the person blessed with it.

If any of you PC fuckers had any talent we'd be awash in PC art to enjoy. But you don't, and we don't. Get it over it.

we also have freedom of expression (1)

sribe (304414) | about a year ago | (#43086059)

If we do not make our opposition to such disgusting (and mind-numbingly stupid) ideas known, then how the hell will social progress ever be made?

Of course he's free to say what he wants. (1)

jaskelling (1927116) | about a year ago | (#43086069)

Freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard. Mr. Card (and everyone else for that matter) is free to say whatever they want. You are not however, free from the repercussions that arise from that speech- nor does that mean that you have to be listened to or accepted. . If I walk around all day saying that I hate pudgy little assholes with glasses & they're abhorrent in (insert deity's name) eyes, it's quite likely that my job where my boss is a pudgy guy with glasses might find a reason to get rid of me. In this case, readers and coworkers don't like what Mr. Card tends to spout off about outside of his stories. This has affected the potential of a project which he was hired on for, even if his beliefs aren't part of the story. Speaking your mind outside of your work can most certainly affect your work. See Tom Cruise, multiple politicians, etc. who said things that were not part of the actual work they were doing, but had severe repercussions for what they said in their work environment.

Boycotting Won't Solve the Root Issue (2)

mentil (1748130) | about a year ago | (#43086095)

Boycotting the Superman issue (which supposedly doesn't contain any author tract on gay marriage) wouldn't change Card's mind, but only tell him that people strongly disagree with him (which I'm sure he's already aware of). His claims need to be directly debunked; it sounds like he has some convoluted speculative-fiction logic that leads him to believe that legalization of gay marriage would lead to a dystopic government. I've heard parallel arguments about chaos being caused by traditional institutions being threatened, but I have a hard time not seeing it as a moral panic. Maybe people will start using critical thinking to challenge traditions based on archaic, often dubious, assumptions. If that's a good or bad thing depends on your point of view.

Some media may be convinced to stay away from homophobic authors/content, but that won't stop homophobia because prejudice is easily spread by word of mouth. Self-censorship won't change anyone's minds, the marketplace of ideas needs to do its thing.
Think of it this way, which is better?:
a) someone never hearing homophobic ideas before, then being deluged by the flawed logic of a true-believer, which they are unlikely to be able to completely debunk on the spot
or b) someone hearing point/counterpoint on every issue as they come up

How about some links, not paraphrases (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086111)

Why are some of the summary's quotes linked and others aren't? Did you run out of anchor tags? I found Card's "end of democracy in America" OpEd here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html?pg=all.

In it he argues that some of the gay marriage laws have been enacted by judicial fiat and not by vote. He says that the process of enacting laws without consent will end democracy in America. He isn't arguing that granting gay marriage legal recognition will end democracy.

Here is his "overthrow the government" quote.
"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn."

Superman is gay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086119)

You know, to me Superman is a gay thing.

I still don't see how those... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43086133)

I still don't see how those who hold up the scientific method as being above and beyond the realm of argument still don't see homosexuality as an abberation and the minority deviation in the species it actually is. The population who are or claim to be that way is so small that they are statistical outliers. Plus, it is a dead evolutionary path. There is no reproduction scheme there. It can only biologically occur with abberant mutations that nature has seen very fit to guarantee don't get passed on. I still don't see how people consider it not deviant (varying from normal) and something sustainable. Biologically it just isn't.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>