Artist Quits Superman Book Over Orson Scott Card Furor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Twilight_guy:
Makes me question how much the separation of artist and art exists. I've heard arguments for viewing art separately from artists and I've seen people linking artists and art. How is one supposed to related artists to art? How does one affect the other?

I think that "art" in whatever form (including all kinds of media, including videogames) is more just the depiction of what the artist sees than anything else, be it in reality or some kind of vision or other image. This also means that a piece of art is always a "part" of the artist, bound by the perspective and personality of the creator.
So viewing art sepearately from the artist is like viewing a sentence out of context. I mean, forget about the whole "what did the artist try to say here" crap, because in most cases we cannot find out because said artist is dead, but ignoring the individual from who's perspective the art is made is really like removing all context altogether. [/pretentious artist rambling]

Having said that...god damn that guy is a bigot. And I actually once considerd reading Ender's Game. Well, not gonna do that now : D

DVS BSTrD:

Thistlehart:
I still find it sad that the person who wrote Speaker for the Dead would be so adamantly anti-gay.

Oh well. It takes all sorts.

Good on the artist sticking to his guns. It's too bad that OSC is seen as the bad-guy for sticking to his, but his is the less-popular firearm at the moment.

Because as long as it's his opinion, he can't actually be wrong now can he?

Oh please don't misunderstand, I think OSC is quite wrong to campaign against gay rights.

I just find it interesting that, while most folks here are praising Sprouse for sticking to his guns by refusing to work on the project with OSC, those same folks are more than happy to condemn OSC for doing the same even though his opinions are unpopular.

It comes down to conflicts of ideology. I'd be willing to bet OSC's a hero or rallying icon on his side and Sprouse is viewed as a degenerate.

I suppose there's not much point to explaining this, but there you go.

Around the point you advocate revolution if the opposition to your beliefs steps into power, you're out of line. It's unfortunate that Card seems to have gotten to a point in his life where he doesn't perceive those who disagree with him as having the amount of depth he used to champion in fictional characters.

As far as trying to get him thrown off the job... I'm torn. There are people who have done spectacularly awful things in their personal lives who still created terrific works of art, literature, and music. I understand not wanting to support him as a commercial enterprise, and the quite reasonable feeling that part of the money you use to support that project indirectly goes to causes you despise. I wouldn't buy the issue (unfortunately, full disclosure would have me admit that I wasn't likely to do so anyway), but I can't really rally behind getting him taken off, either.

I applaud the artist for withdrawing and DC for supporting that decision, though.

A person's personal beliefs are his or her own business. I don't agree with much of Orson Scott Card's work, but I'm also embarrassed by people who try and bully him and those associated with him into silence. Someone once said that the true test of "freedom of speech" is when you stand up for someone's views you hate and defend his or her right to be HEARD, even if you don't agree with what is said.

Beyond that, yeah, as already pointed out, nearly every bit of art to ever exist was created by people who held a personal belief somewhere down the line that people would largely object to. Does that mean the movies of Roman Polanski are less well-made because he's a rapist? Is Dragon Quest still not a good RPG because its composer is a Holocaust denier? Is Alan Moore not a great comic book writer, despite having extreme anarchist views, issues with women, and is nuttier than squirrel poop?

Orson Scott Card's views, from my reading, have never come through in his writing. He puts his personal views down when he takes up professional work, as a professional would do.

I've had to work on projects with Christians, Muslims, Atheists, men, women, Africans, Asians, Russians, Communists, gays, straights, recreational drug users, recovered alcoholics, married, single, and all manner of other types, together on projects where we put all that aside for the common good of the work we did.

If you look for anything, anywhere, you will find an opinion you disagree with. I disagreed with many of my co-workers. But I'm proud of the work we created, and its moronic to get upset at someone for doing something RIGHT. Orson Scott Card's a good writer, he truly is, and his personal views have no place a backlash against his art. If you wish to complain to him about his personal views, there's a time and place for that as well. But, well, other people are involved in the making of a comic, not just Orson Scott Card, and I'm not petty enough to throw everyone under the bus just because one person in a group holds a view I don't share.

I can relate to this issue in a rather personal way. A few years ago I took over writing the videogame column for Mr. Card's online fiction magazine. I am also a long time fan of the Ender books, as in they inspired me to pursue writing At the time, I was unaware of Card's personal views regarding homosexuality and same marriage. Being a rather devoted proponent of legalization (I have a gay brother and LGBT friends) it definitely provided me a moment of pause. Would it be hypocritical of me to work for him?

After discussing it with my wife, my friends and thinking about it thoroughly myself, I opted to keep writing for his publication. My reasoning at the time was simply that, no matter where I was working, I would unavoidably wind up working for or with someone who held views that opposed my beliefs. Throwing a fit and quitting would serve no one. His beliefs wouldn't be changed at all.

To the contrary, I think when people throw fits like that all it does is strengthen the resolve of the person they're trying to shame. They just dig their trenches deeper whereas some common decency and basic personal respect (while less flashy) can go a long way toward reshaping someone's views of something. I have never personally met Mr. Card, but if I were to do so and the issue of gay marriage were to come up, I think I'd be doing myself and my cause much more good by explaining my views with grace and intelligence.

Similarly, as some have said, you sometimes do just have to separate the product from the creator. Mr. Card has his views but he also wrote an excellent series of books with a primary theme of empathy and understanding. There are countless other examples. Frank Miller is currently something of a racist fascist but in his early years he wrote one of the best Batman books ever. Richard Wagner was a bit of an anti-semite, but he also wrote some of the most influential operas and classical music in history (Ride of the Valkyries). I freaking love Conan the Barbarian, even if Robert E. Howard was a racist who injected those beliefs into his writing at times.

Great works rarely come from morally white places and if that's going to be your standard for enjoying something you might as well just hole up at home and like nothing.

Windknight:

lord canti:
I'm confused here yes the guy is a dick, but unless he is putting his beliefs in his work then people really don't need to be getting so upset about this. Can someone tell me if this guy puts his beliefs through his work?

he actively donates to lobbying groups seeking to have homosexuality criminalised. So, by giving him money, your indirectly giving those groups money. Some people would rather not give him money, and would like people to understand why they're not giving him money.

Oh ok then I can see why so many people have a problem with this guy. However I still think people are overreacting a bit to much,but hey people have as much right not to buy or read his stuff than he does spouting all his crap off.

Rogue 09:
Okay... I kind of need some clarification on this.

If all Card is doing is advocating against gay marriage... who cares? A lot of people are against gay marriage, and it has nothing to do with being a bigot. They're trying to preserve something that they hold as sacred, and believe that gay marriage will take away from that. Whether you agree with it or not doesn't matter. There is nothing bigoted about trying to hold onto the traditions of a religious or spiritual ritual.

Now, if he is slurring gays we get into a whole other issue. Then the man is a bigot, but doesn't make him a terrible human being. If he is committing or threatening violence against these groups, then we have a problem and I would be completely down with any sort of boycott against him.

You cannot punish someone for sharing their personal beliefs on an issue just because we disagree with it. The US Government isn't the only party who has to respect the amendments outlined in the constitution. We, as citizens, have an obligation to support every last one of them.

That doesn't mean that you can't disagree! However, you should use words to influence people to change. Using a mob punishment system is just as irresponsible as if the government were to lock up dissenters for speaking out.

1) This is not a "mob punishment system." The artist didn't want to associate himself with Card because Card is a hateful dick. DC stood by the artist because lots of people thing Card is a hateful dick, so it's a good PR move.

2) We do not have an obligation to treat or react to speech equally. A boycott is acceptable for any reason. When he says things like, "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books...to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens," we have the right to say things like, "Fuuuuuuuck you." The First Amendment protects speech from government censure, not public backlash.

I'd have much more sympathy for an average person who lost their shitty job due to a blog post or something. But Card is rich and famous. He uses his publicity to create a soapbox to stand on and spout hateful rhetoric, and he donates money he gets from things like this comic (if it ever gets off the ground) to hateful groups.

3) A boycott is not comparable to being jailed for political dissidence what are you even saying.

4) Opposition to marriage equality is bigotry. All the arguments being trotted out now are the same ones the anti-miscegenation crowd loved so much half a century ago. And if you're upset about a traditional religious ritual, complain to your church. Last I checked, they're the ones in charge of deciding what is sacred. The government's duty is to provide equality for citizens under the law.

LysanderNemoinis:
I for one, am not buying BioShock Infinite or SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

I played through SpecOps: The Line, and I didn't see any anti-Americanism in that game. For starters, the game tries not to push any particular viewpoint as being "right", and even if it did, "violence is sometimes the answer, but not always" isn't exactly anti-American.

LysanderNemoinis:
The man has an opinion, and people are losing their minds over it. We all have opinions that people don't agree with. It just seems to me that certain opinions are considered acceptable and others are not. He has no power to enforce his beliefs on others, no way to make people change their minds, no ability to influence anyone. If you don't like what he believes, don't buy his products. I for one, am not buying BioShock Infinite or SpecOps: The Line because I don't like what the games espouse. Pure and simple. The anti-Americanism there is as offensive to me as what Card says to some of you.

I'm just glad there are a few people on here that realize that once you start holding people's opinions against them, and discriminate against people for what they think, you're getting into increasingly sketchy territory.

The problem is his beliefs are against a whole group of innocent people.

If he was a nazi, or a white supremacist, people would still be getting in an uproar.

Being anti-gay isn't an opinion, its bigotry.

Im actually glad about the out come here (not that I was even slightly invested before hand so meh), from what I hear OSC is a massive c*nt but for some reason I can't agree with firing him for simply having an oppinion... sort of, AAARRRGGGHHH, I HATE THIS MORALLY GREY BULLSHIT! I can at least say good on the artist for being so classy about it and stepping back from such a scummy bastard.

I know its hypocritical to hate someone because they hate someone but I just don't care. If he has the right to go around writing essays about why homosexuality is wrong then I have the right to call him a c*nt.

Thistlehart:

DVS BSTrD:

Thistlehart:
I still find it sad that the person who wrote Speaker for the Dead would be so adamantly anti-gay.

Oh well. It takes all sorts.

Good on the artist sticking to his guns. It's too bad that OSC is seen as the bad-guy for sticking to his, but his is the less-popular firearm at the moment.

Because as long as it's his opinion, he can't actually be wrong now can he?

Oh please don't misunderstand, I think OSC is quite wrong to campaign against gay rights.

I just find it interesting that, while most folks here are praising Sprouse for sticking to his guns by refusing to work on the project with OSC, those same folks are more than happy to condemn OSC for doing the same even though his opinions are unpopular.

It comes down to conflicts of ideology. I'd be willing to bet OSC's a hero or rallying icon on his side and Sprouse is viewed as a degenerate.

I suppose there's not much point to explaining this, but there you go.

This is very true, although as someone who has hade many gay friends in the past the idea of someone attacking them just drives me mad. Im always telling myself theres two sides to every argument but its always different when you generally have some stakes (however minor) in said fight.

Ethics... s'all grey.

deth2munkies:
I thought leftists were all for people not being discriminated against because of their political views? It's ironic that they hate so virulently someone that they claim hates virulently.

Don't bring political groups into it.

Beyond that, if someone hated an entire group of people for being who they are and you happened to be part of that group/supported that group wouldn't you be offended?

Rogue 09:
-snip-

Well...I care? I can't get married to someone I love because of people like him.

There's a wide gap between "protecting" something and holding an entire group of people back due to your bigotry.

And yes, it is bigotry.

lord canti:
I'm confused here yes the guy is a dick, but unless he is putting his beliefs in his work then people really don't need to be getting so upset about this. Can someone tell me if this guy puts his beliefs through his work?

Thistlehart:

lord canti:
I'm confused here yes the guy is a dick, but unless he is putting his beliefs in his work then people really don't need to be getting so upset about this. Can someone tell me if this guy puts his beliefs through his work?

Directly? No.

wolf thing:

lord canti:
I'm confused here yes the guy is a dick, but unless he is putting his beliefs in his work then people really don't need to be getting so upset about this. Can someone tell me if this guy puts his beliefs through his work?

from what i have read many of his books at least in the enders game series has a lot of religion in then (Card is a mormon which explains in part his homophobia) but the parallels between the one in the books and the real life religion im not sure about

Trishbot:

Orson Scott Card's views, from my reading, have never come through in his writing. He puts his personal views down when he takes up professional work, as a professional would do.

Apparently, most people are not familiar with his more recent work. I also loved the Ender books when I read them. A few years ago I discovered he was anti-gay when I read about his remake of Hamlet. It's quite interesting:

And then there's the startling reveal at the end of the novella, in which we discover - spoiler alert - that Hamlet's father was gay, and that this made him a terrible king. And his ghost was actually a demonic liar that misled Hamlet as to his cause of death. Claudius didn't kill Hamlet's dad after all - instead, it was Horatio, who was taking revenge on Hamlet's dad for molesting him as a little boy. Hamlet's dad also molested Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, and turned all four of them gay in the process. (Oh, and in the end, Hamlet goes to Hell for all the harm he's caused, where his gay dad will molest him for the rest of eternity.)

From this review on io9.

tautologico:

Apparently, most people are not familiar with his more recent work. I also loved the Ender books when I read them. A few years ago I discovered he was anti-gay when I read about his remake of Hamlet. It's quite interesting:

That would be an adequate assessment. The last Card work I read was Xenocide. Not long after that I heard about his rather unfortunate attitude toward LGBTs due to the uproar over that side-scrolling action game he was involved in. The name of which I have long since forgotten.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't realized Card's views were so... poisoned. Poor deluded fellow.

Trishbot:
Is Alan Moore not a great comic book writer, despite having extreme anarchist views, issues with women, and is nuttier than squirrel poop?

Heh, I also brought up Alan Moore in the R&P forum thread about this same topic. Didn't know that he had issues with women though, I just saw him as kind of a jerk.

Twilight_guy:
Makes me question how much the separation of artist and art exists. I've heard arguments for viewing art separately from artists and I've seen people linking artists and art. How is one supposed to related artists to art? How does one affect the other?

Oh look, the first intelligent post in the thread.

Look people, have you READ his work? it's phenomenal. And (as far as I've read) incredibly free of hateful content.

Before bawwwing about his being on the project, why don't you wait and see if his personal politics affect the story before calling for blood?

Yes, he's a religious dolt who believes incredibly stupid things. But so are most people. And until his personal beliefs affect his ability to tell a good story, people need to quit bitching.

*grumbles*

Im of two minds about this sort of thing. His views are pretty old fashioned and way out of step with the way we're going as a society. On the other hand, political views and activism should be separate from your job. His politial affiliation and participation in government lobbying shouldn't have any effect on his standing in his place of employment (i know, its about the other artists stepping down, etc).

Regardless of how you feel about his anti-gay stance and such silliness, he's still a legend of science fiction. I feel like everyone should get one batshit crazy thing they get to prattle on about. For card, its gays. For me, its my demand for an unscientific complete moratorium on oceanic fishing for 5-10 years, a batshit crazy stance that will cause mass global starvation and numerous wars. WHATEVER, LET TEH FIHS RECOVAR

Even bigots need a job you know guys. He made a decision to hate gay people and he has the right to. What's the problem.

DC Comics has handed the keys to the "Champion of the Oppressed" to a guy who has dedicated himself to oppress me, and my partner, and millions of people like us. It represents a fundamental misread of who the character is, and what he means.

It is dispiriting. It is wearying. It is also, finally, not for me.

One of the other nicknames that accrued to Superman right away - that predates "Man of Steel" by a good amount - is "The Man of Tomorrow." And much of his early iconography bears a distinctive Socio-Realist, Diego Rivera vibe: a lot of burnished golden sunrises, eyes raised to the horizon, gazing into the future.

Because that's where he lives, Superman. And that's what he says to us: We can do better. We can be better, to ourselves, and to each other.

Hey, DC Comics? Be better.

ChristopherT:
There's a small part of all this that I do not understand. There are people who want Card fired? or not be allowed to work on Superman comics. There are people who want someone to not have a job because of his personal beliefs. I don't care how much of a dick head, asshole, bigot Card is, isn't that still discrimination against him or possible other -ations?

lord canti:
I'm confused here yes the guy is a dick, but unless he is putting his beliefs in his work then people really don't need to be getting so upset about this. Can someone tell me if this guy puts his beliefs through his work?

SanAndreasSmoke:
I think all of us here can agree that Card is a bigot, but are his personal opinions seriously the justification people present in order to boot him from writing a goddamn Superman comic?

Look, it's cool if people want to continuously harp on the guy for being narrow-minded (because it's only a matter of time before he agrees with us, right? /sarc), but if he's not writing his views into the comic, why is this such a huge issue? Perhaps I'm missing some info since this is the first I've heard about this.

I tried to get all the comments where people ask why it's a big deal.

I agree. It shouldn't be. But it's the same reason people boycott Chick-Fil-A. They're using the money you pay them (for comics and books in one case and for chicken in another) to "donate" to and help fund these anti-gay organizations.

I do sincerely hope that nobody's granted these organizations a tax exemption, though. It's like granting a tax exemption to the KKK.

Here's the thing, for me.

Orson Scott Card's beliefs are, in fact, important to his job, because his job is to share his beliefs with the public. If he advocates for something despicable, I can in fact be upset that he will be getting a new platform for that advocacy, and I can inform DC that I will not be picking up any issues that allow him onto that pedestal.

This isn't a situation where he's losing his job down at the assembly line. The guy specifically makes media in which he tries to spread ideas, and we give him money for that, and he uses that money to spread ideas farther. It's basically straightforwards.

This is no different than what basically every advocacy group for any side ever has done to every artist ever that they disagreed with - asked the people paying him to not pay him. No legal ramifications, no criminalization. Just asking to not enable him farther. The difference this time is that his beliefs have become sufficiently unpopular that he's actually losing ground.

Answering bigotry with bigotry makes everyone a bigot.

I think that people here are confused about the American First Amendment and "freedom of speech." Alright, I'm probably not the best person to talk about this (giving that I'm a bit unhinged) but I'll give it a try anyways.

Now, from what I can gather from the article (I can't access the USA website, something wrong?), OSC is writing the new Superman. People dislike OSC because of his views on gay marriage (me included) and are planning on boycotting the comic. Some people are even signing a petition demanding his removal. As a result of this, the artist for the superman comic had quit and DC supported that decision.

At no time is OSC's rights ever threatened. He does have a right to have opinions on the LQBT population. He also is in his rights to advocate and support his groups. HOWEVER, the public does in fact has a right to respond in any manner that doesn't result in direct violence (either verbal or physical) to OSC. Boycotting doesn't directly hurt him. It just makes it more likely that he will not be hired again by DC. Signing a petition also isn't hurting his rights. All a petition can do is show how many people agree with the petition. It is still up to DC whether or not to fire him. So, all responses on how his rights are being trampled upon are unfounded.

Also, DC's support on the artists leaving is very neutral. All DC is saying is that they will move the artist to a different job and take another artist for the superman comic. So yeah, most posts on this threads seem overreacting to me. Now we should focus on more important matters like Tropes vs. Women...wait, what's with the pitchforks and torches?

Preacher zer0:
Answering bigotry with bigotry makes everyone a bigot.

Eh, maybe. But then again, the difference is that OSC is preaching intolerance against people for something they were born with. Speaking out against him and asking for boycotts are simply the consequences for his beliefs. He makes a concious choice to be an asshat, and I have every right to call him that, deny him my money and inform others of his asshattery so that they can deny him money too. He wants people to be denied rights based not on their choices or opinions, but rather the circumstances of their birth.

If he was speaking out against black people there would be none of this "answering bigotry with bigotry" shit.

Thistlehart:

DVS BSTrD:

Thistlehart:
I still find it sad that the person who wrote Speaker for the Dead would be so adamantly anti-gay.

Oh well. It takes all sorts.

Good on the artist sticking to his guns. It's too bad that OSC is seen as the bad-guy for sticking to his, but his is the less-popular firearm at the moment.

Because as long as it's his opinion, he can't actually be wrong now can he?

Oh please don't misunderstand, I think OSC is quite wrong to campaign against gay rights.

I just find it interesting that, while most folks here are praising Sprouse for sticking to his guns by refusing to work on the project with OSC, those same folks are more than happy to condemn OSC for doing the same even though his opinions are unpopular.

It comes down to conflicts of ideology. I'd be willing to bet OSC's a hero or rallying icon on his side and Sprouse is viewed as a degenerate.

I suppose there's not much point to explaining this, but there you go.

Oh believe me, standing up for your beliefs only counts in my eyes if you're actually on behalf of others. Card is doing it to deny people rights.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Preacher zer0:
Name any writer or artist who does work you like a lot... I can promise you they have some belief or opinion that you would dislike a lot.

If a writer or artist holds an opinion or belief you dislike, does that mean you have to avoid their work?
Because if it does... you won't be doing much reading, or watching movies, or playing games or listening to music.

I think Alan Moore is a total douchebag, but I love his work.

Humans are idiots and we all hold some belief that another person would find offensive.

The guy has his beliefs, fine, but if he's going to use my money to fund hate groups that satisfy his point of view then no, I can't really buy his work.

Who else is now expecting Movie bob to grudgingly admit he has to do an episode on this now? ;D

Friv:
This isn't a situation where he's losing his job down at the assembly line. The guy specifically makes media in which he tries to spread ideas, and we give him money for that, and he uses that money to spread ideas farther. It's basically straightforwards.

He also uses that money to donate to hate groups and anti-gay marriage organizations, ideas all 'round I suppose.

saintdane05:
DC Comics has handed the keys to the "Champion of the Oppressed" to a guy who has dedicated himself to oppress me, and my partner, and millions of people like us. It represents a fundamental misread of who the character is, and what he means.

It is dispiriting. It is wearying. It is also, finally, not for me.

One of the other nicknames that accrued to Superman right away - that predates "Man of Steel" by a good amount - is "The Man of Tomorrow." And much of his early iconography bears a distinctive Socio-Realist, Diego Rivera vibe: a lot of burnished golden sunrises, eyes raised to the horizon, gazing into the future.

Because that's where he lives, Superman. And that's what he says to us: We can do better. We can be better, to ourselves, and to each other.

Hey, DC Comics? Be better.

Ok, so I have a feeling you have no idea what you are talking about here..

Just because he doesnt like gay folk doesnt mean superman is suddenly going to hate gay folk. Artists can do justice to characters, even if their views dont align perfectly with that of the character.

I dont think anyone has the right to judge him on how well he will do before they see the work. He is an amazing author, his ender books are flat out amazing, and not a hint of anti homosexuality is in there.

OT TLDR: Eh good, maybe DC can find a GOOD artist who will focus on the art instead of whining about someones social and political views.

In a similar thread, I defending Card's right to work on the comic as long as his beliefs did not leak into it, and as long as it couldn't be proven that proceeds were going to the gay version of the KKK (the NOM). Weird for me, since I've defended gay marriage for 14 years.

Well, it's pretty clear they do after a few new reports, so...

Don't fire the dude. But anyone who doesn't want to work with him should exercise that right too.

CAPTCHA: tall building

Wow, that's just weird.

Desert Punk:
I dont think anyone has the right to judge him on how well he will do before they see the work.

Nope. People are well in their rights to call him an ass for his beliefs, and to not buy his stuff. Cuz really, who wants their money going towards hate groups?

Jackel86:
Good. OSC is a scumbag. I don't even like Superman, I'm just glad to see people stand against such a terrible bigot.

Hopefully Shadow Complex 2 can release without his name attached to it this time.

Hopefully Shadow Complex 2 wont be Shadow Complex 2. While I thought it was a good game gameplay-wise, I thought the story was kinda crap. Having read the supposed tie-in book (which had almost jack to do with the game), I dont think I want to see anymore of that particular universe.

DVS BSTrD:

Thistlehart:

Oh please don't misunderstand, I think OSC is quite wrong to campaign against gay rights.

I just find it interesting that, while most folks here are praising Sprouse for sticking to his guns by refusing to work on the project with OSC, those same folks are more than happy to condemn OSC for doing the same even though his opinions are unpopular.

It comes down to conflicts of ideology. I'd be willing to bet OSC's a hero or rallying icon on his side and Sprouse is viewed as a degenerate.

I suppose there's not much point to explaining this, but there you go.

Oh believe me, standing up for your beliefs only counts in my eyes if you're actually on behalf of others. Card is doing it to deny people rights.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Well, I think an argument could be made that may substantiate the idea that Card is looking after interests other than, and even greater than, his own.

That much could be inferred from his published works. At the same time, I think, it would cement him as quite delusional, and possibly schizophrenic.

If you're interested, I could go into it, but if you're convinced he's evil and has no moral ground of his own to stand on, then I won't bother.

Thistlehart:

DVS BSTrD:

Thistlehart:

Oh please don't misunderstand, I think OSC is quite wrong to campaign against gay rights.

I just find it interesting that, while most folks here are praising Sprouse for sticking to his guns by refusing to work on the project with OSC, those same folks are more than happy to condemn OSC for doing the same even though his opinions are unpopular.

It comes down to conflicts of ideology. I'd be willing to bet OSC's a hero or rallying icon on his side and Sprouse is viewed as a degenerate.

I suppose there's not much point to explaining this, but there you go.

Oh believe me, standing up for your beliefs only counts in my eyes if you're actually on behalf of others. Card is doing it to deny people rights.

Sorry I misunderstood you.

Well, I think an argument could be made that may substantiate the idea that Card is looking after interests other than, and even greater than, his own.

That much could be inferred from his published works. At the same time, I think, it would cement him as quite delusional, and possibly schizophrenic.

If you're interested, I could go into it, but if you're convinced he's evil and has no moral ground of his own to stand on, then I won't bother.

That's why I emphasized the actually. Card may be able to convince himself that he's doing the right thing, but in reality he's using the threat of anarchy as an excuse to spread fear and intolerance.
What was that quote from Nietzsche? A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

Sepko:

Desert Punk:
I dont think anyone has the right to judge him on how well he will do before they see the work.

Nope. People are well in their rights to call him an ass for his beliefs, and to not buy his stuff. Cuz really, who wants their money going towards hate groups?

Apparently you failed to comprehend my point.

Allow me to explain further. I didnt say they shouldnt get their undies in a bunch about his views or where he spends his money. I was saying that they shouldn't judge him incapable of doing the work because of his views, when the majority of his previous great work had no anti-homosexual tendencies at all.

Just because he doesnt like gay folk doesnt mean he is incapable of writing superman.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here