Artist Quits Superman Book Over Orson Scott Card Furor

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

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

He isn't the man who wrote Speaker for the Dead anymore.

That Card was comfortable with sex and could write about two people having sex for pleasure. And even some same-sex romantic stuff.

And then years passed, and Card got in with the Nuns, and then we got Ender's Shadow, which spawned the god-awful Shadow series (staring Bean) where Card could no longer call sex "sex". Or even making love. He could only call it "Making Babies". This wasn't just one character, it was ALL characters talking about sex. And all his female characters were suddenly pregnancy machines, interested only in becoming pregnant so they could have children.

Petra, of Ender's Game, talking about "Making Babies" that way, made me physically ill.

I hate the Shadows series. It is homophobic misogynistic drivel.

And then Card wrote that book that takes place between the last couple of chapters of Ender's game. And the female characters in that book do exactly the same thing.

Speaker for the Dead Card is dead. I don't know what Doppelganger is currently occupying his corpse, but he's anti-gay, anti-women, and anti-good-writing.

DVS BSTrD:

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.

Well, I did use the terms "delusional" and "possibly schizophrenic," so I'm right there with you.

However, I offer you a quote for a quote.

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. This may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not, then you can kill him without hate--and quickly." --Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein also had several poignant things to say about self-deception, which I think bear out in this case.

Thistlehart:

DVS BSTrD:

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.

Well, I did use the terms "delusional" and "possibly schizophrenic," so I'm right there with you.

However, I offer you a quote for a quote.

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. This may offer you a way to make him your friend. If not, then you can kill him without hate--and quickly." --Robert A. Heinlein

Heinlein also had several poignant things to say about self-deception, which I think bear out in this case.

Oh I do believe in killing quickly without hate, the longer they live the angrier I get.

Desert Punk:

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.

I haven't heard that though, at least it not being the primary reason. Most of the outcry is not about his capabilities as a writer but that he uses his financial gain as a writer to influence oppressive actions.

Friv:
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.

I agree. The reason Sprouse has backed out of the comic is because very few people will buy it thanks to OSC's beliefs, which would end up hurting any royalties he received from its creation. Even artists need to make a living. The effect of DC siding with the artist means the chances of this particular issue coming out, if ever, look rather slim.

Everyone has a right to their own opinions, just as everyone has a right to ignore those opinions and stop enabling the people who spread them.

LordLundar:

Desert Punk:

Sepko:

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.

I haven't heard that though, at least it not being the primary reason. Most of the outcry is not about his capabilities as a writer but that he uses his financial gain as a writer to influence oppressive actions.

The person I was talking at originally did. Though Sepko decided to jump into the conversation for some odd reason and I was clarifying my point for him.

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.

This is the part I was addressing, Just because he is oppressive himself doesn't mean he is a talent less hack that cant write for a more balanced character.

Oh fuck me, I read Ender's Games without realizing that the author was a massive bigoted asshole. Well, hopefully nobody works with this piece of shit and his story doesn't ever see the light of day.

My basic attitude on the subject is that boycotting someone's work for being anti-gay is the same as doing it because it's pro-gay. When it gets down to the sentiments of the writers which might not even come up in the specific works being discussed, it just gets ridiculous. It's a situation where I think people need to just grow up and accept that people disagree with them, on both sides. If I went around and boycotted everything out there that was pro-gay in some way (which I hardly am) I'd miss a lot of good stuff. Ditto when it comes to authors who are just generally off their rockers whacked. If half the stories I've heard about Alan Moore are true for example, I think him being an oddball goes beyond having an opinion on sexual orientation.

I find it kind of backwards to argue that people should malign people's writing (like say Ender's game), due to the politics of the guy writing it which may or may not even be involved in the story.

As far as the situation with Superman goes, unless the story had something to do with sexual orientation, the way it seems to me is that this QQing is just costing people a good story. The situation would be like me, someone who is hardly pro-gay, refusing to have anything to do with the writings/productions of say Neil Gaiman or Clive Barker or on a comics related front perhaps Grant Morrison. I might not agree with it's central politics but something like "The Invisibles" was an okay (if not my favorite) comic series and pretty entertaining for example.

While I understand there is a tendency for people solidly on one side of things to want to cheer for someone apparently "standing up" for their principles, there is a point where it's done in a bad place. This is exactly the kind of "victory" you don't want, and what snowballs into making things nastier when the inevitable backlash happens, especially on issues like this where there isn't exactly a clear majority.

Speaking for myself, I've had increasingly less faith in DC over the years and to me this entire thing smacks of a PR stunt more than anything. Given some of the stories I've read over the years about the relationships between comic publishers, writers, and artists, if this kind of insubordination happened off the cuff, the writer would be "thrown under the bus" no matter what stance it took and would have to find another job right quick. What's more finding an artist willing to take on a contreversial story from any angle usually isn't difficult since there are people who are pretty much dying for any work, and like it or not this story is going to get their name out there, and it's pretty
easy to seperate the artist from approval with the story. My gut feeling is the entire "story" being circulated here is simply to get attention and generate hype for when they inevitably release the story, and have people lining up to see what all the fuss was about. Not to mention to see if they can actually provoke an anti-gay backlash (unlikely to happen but always something that can be attempted) to simply get attention. DC hasn't exactly been "keeping it classy" for a long time now.

That's my thoughts at any rate, not that I expect a lot of people to agree with me on these forums.

DVS BSTrD:

Andy Chalk:
Orson Scott Card is a pretty good storyteller, but he's also kind of a terrible human being. The Ender's Game author is infamous for his criticism of homosexuality and virulent opposition to same-sex marriage; he serves on the board of the National Organization of Marriage, a political group that works to oppose same-sex marriage in the U.S., and said in in 2008 that he would "act to destroy" any government that legalized it. In a 2004 essay entitled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization," he described same-sex marriage as a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that gay men and women are not actually being discriminated against because they have the same legal right to get married as everyone else - to a member of the opposite sex.

It's hilarious when a bigot is too stupid to realize they're a bigot. But then if they were intelligent, they wouldn't be bigots in the first place.

You'd be surprised how many composers were blatant racists, you really would.

Good. It's great to see public opinion shifting in this way and corporations taking into consideration just how such things can affect business.

It's a shame they can't just fire him for legal reasons, they will have to actually publish something of his, see it bomb then remove him for poor sales when they can already see it coming.

rapidoud:

DVS BSTrD:

Andy Chalk:
Orson Scott Card is a pretty good storyteller, but he's also kind of a terrible human being. The Ender's Game author is infamous for his criticism of homosexuality and virulent opposition to same-sex marriage; he serves on the board of the National Organization of Marriage, a political group that works to oppose same-sex marriage in the U.S., and said in in 2008 that he would "act to destroy" any government that legalized it. In a 2004 essay entitled "Homosexual 'Marriage' and Civilization," he described same-sex marriage as a "potentially devastating social experiment" and argued that gay men and women are not actually being discriminated against because they have the same legal right to get married as everyone else - to a member of the opposite sex.

It's hilarious when a bigot is too stupid to realize they're a bigot. But then if they were intelligent, they wouldn't be bigots in the first place.

You'd be surprised how many composers were blatant racists, you really would.

Actuallyyyy... no I wouldn't. I might be surprised to find out exactly which ones were racist against who, but I've read enough history to be thoroughly disillusioned with humanity by now.

Therumancer:
My basic attitude on the subject is that boycotting someone's work for being anti-gay is the same as doing it because it's pro-gay.

I'm going to stop you right there.

Being anti-gay is not a statement of opinion, or a political belief. It is not like taking a stand on gun control, or climate change, or taxes, or abortion.

Being anti-gay is about being a bigot. Full stop. There is no middle ground. It is morally identical to being antisemitic, or anti-black. There is no excuse for it. There is no justification for it. There is no rationale for it. There are explanations for it, and they can make me sympathetic to the person who is being a bigot, but an explanation is not an excuse. Being anti-gay is about declaring that someone else is lesser than you because they are not precisely like you, and makes you a worse person than you were before. It creates artificial barriers between people, and segregates a category of person into being second-class citizens for the rest of their lives, causing misery and pain to millions of people, for literally no reason at all beyond your own issues.

It is awful. It is indefensible. It is utterly wrong.

I do not get mad at groups like One Million Moms because they are trying to boycott someone for their beliefs. I get mad because those beliefs are utterly, inexcusably vile.

Friv:

Therumancer:
My basic attitude on the subject is that boycotting someone's work for being anti-gay is the same as doing it because it's pro-gay.

I'm going to stop you right there.

Being anti-gay is not a statement of opinion, or a political belief. It is not like taking a stand on gun control, or climate change, or taxes, or abortion.

Being anti-gay is about being a bigot. Full stop. There is no middle ground. It is morally identical to being antisemitic, or anti-black. There is no excuse for it. There is no justification for it. There is no rationale for it. There are explanations for it, and they can make me sympathetic to the person who is being a bigot, but an explanation is not an excuse. Being anti-gay is about declaring that someone else is lesser than you because they are not precisely like you, and makes you a worse person than you were before. It creates artificial barriers between people, and segregates a category of person into being second-class citizens for the rest of their lives, causing misery and pain to millions of people, for literally no reason at all beyond your own issues.

It is awful. It is indefensible. It is utterly wrong.

I do not get mad at groups like One Million Moms because they are trying to boycott someone for their beliefs. I get mad because those beliefs are utterly, inexcusably vile.

... which of course is what keeps things nasty and an ongoing battle, since a whole heck of a lot of people, close to 50% of the population in the US, and probably like 90% of the population globally (given that the second and third world which vastly outnumber the first world are hardly hotbeds of tolerance on this subject) disagree with you.

The extremity to which this stance is taken, and mirrored on other issues (ie the other side is entirely wrong and their position is utterly, indefensibly wrong) is a big part of why the country is such a mess right now, and why a lot of sociologists are predicting a civil war, not so much over gay rights, though that will be one of several related issues. With presidential elections being run by single digits and a lot of people on both sides rallying on the big issues and seeing the other side as basically being the devil, it's inevitable that at some point a seemingly major victory by one side or the other is going to lead to the other inevitably striking to "take back the country".

That said, on this paticular issue there are three major positions.

On the right wing side of things you have those who believe being homosexual should be illegal. This can be for a lot of differant reasons which I won't go into specifically, but they amount to moralistic arguements, defenses of traditional "family values" and social structure, and the continued enforcement of early "common laws" (as they applied to the US) which form the foundation of society. Up until fairly recently laws against buggery, homosexuality, and other things were actually on the books, and this side is pretty much for enforcing the law and maintaining a way of life that has existed up until the last couple of centuries, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

On the left wing side of things you have those (like you) who believe in the complete and total acceptance of homosexuals, feeling there is nothing wrong with it on any level, and anything negative presented is by definition going to be a lie or propaganda presented by the other side.

In the middle you have people like me who are hated by both sides, who basically encourage compromise. That is to say that being homosexual shouldn't be illegal, but it should be registered and controlled at least for the short term. You have arguements on both sides about issues like whether gay men are more pre-disposed to attacking children, with both sides of things claiming to have debunked the other side as liars. Something that catches law enforcement and things like Code Adam training in an odd position of having to seperate practice and profiling from politically correct realities, and ignore patterns, and similar things, while fights over how powerful groups like NAMBLA are rage left and right. My basic arguement for intents and purposes tends to come down to registering gay men at least, prohibiting them from various areas they are not likely to want to go anyway, and then tracking and observing. In the long run if it turns out the left wing is right, and there are no issues over a period of time, so be it, and you can remove the
limits after a generation or two of observation, if the opposite is uncovered you have the option to implement more hardcore laws.

I'm not going to argue the point other than to say the middle ground is comparitively rare. To a left winger I'm evil because I'm not for total and unconditional acceptance. To a right winger on the subject I'm evil because I'm pretty much letting homosexuals do whatever they want with each other (I don't care what consenting adults do on their own time) and any pretensions of limitations are pointless, especially if your talking about long term data gathering and tracking that might not see any immediate effect if it ever does (which to a serious right winger just seems like an excuse to pacify some of them while letting the behavior go on).

As a result I'm hardly pro-gay, but I'm not anti-gay either. I'm not going to argue the point here, just making a statement about the way things break down as far as "sides" go.

That said, when it comes to someone's writing their political affiliation has nothing to do with anything, if they aren't talking on that paticular subject. I can appreciate tales told by people from positions I seriously do not
agree with. I also do not believe that we should have say scrapped the entire space program because Werner Von Braun
was pretty much the worst kind of person, going by what the Nazis did (who were anti-gay, anti-jewish, anti-gypsy, and pretty much anti- anyone not meeting their genetic ideal), I can respect his contributions to technology and Aeronautics without liking him, or approving with him trying to launch god knows how many V2s on civilians even after he pretty
much knew the war was over and it was pointless.

My point is that sure, to you OSC might be another Von Braun, but you can appreciate his work without agreeing with him as a person.

Am I the only one who sees this as unfortunate? I believe that personal and professional views should be kept seperate. Knowing nothing else about the issue, it looks to me like an artist has stepped down because of an irrelevant and unwarranted reaction by media, fans and retailers over the storyteller's controversial views. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with him and his actions are despicable, but unless he intends to use the comics to broadcast his mindset, they shouldn't be an issue. After all, Fez was still a good game. Just because the creator is a bigot doesn't mean the creation is going to reflect that or be tarnished because of it. If the comic ended up being homophobic in some way, then people would rightly criticise that.

That said, it's your prerogative to vote with your wallets and not support the creator's views by boycotting their creation, but someone completely unrelated has lost out this time. He didn't say he left because he couldn't bear working with such an intolerable bigot, he said it was because of the media attention.

In the end...I find that I am a hypocrite, because I am fine with boycotting games for their publishers' marketing practises without taking the developer into account, and yet I am against boycotting potentially good content (and forget that, even proven good content) to make a point about the creator's views. So...fuck.

Understandable. If I were the artist then I wouldn't want to be associated with him, either.
As for the debate going on here? No, I wouldn't look past the fact that money spent on this issue would go to NOM, which is something I certainly wouldn't want to support with my cash. I would also advocate to other comic book readers that this would happen, telling them that I think they shouldn't support Card and NOM with their cash, either. And thus a boycott is born.
It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, which protects you from government interference, and everything to do with public opinion and voting with your wallet.
We've actually had this discussion going on in R&P for some time now.

DVS BSTrD:
Keep Sprouse, and make OSC work on Green Lantern instead :P

No, you keep him the hell away from my love. Put him on Archie or something.

I applaud this artist. It takes balls to potentially risk your career by doing, what I believe to be, the right thing.

My respects to you.

Voxgizer:

DVS BSTrD:
Keep Sprouse, and make OSC work on Green Lantern instead :P

No, you keep him the hell away from my love. Put him on Archie or something.

Archie comics wouldn't even touch OSC with a 10-ft poll. Even they have standards and also adamantly defended having gay marriage featured as a cover story in their comic.

Personally I'm glad that the artist has dumped his responsibility in this story. Whatever talent in writing OSC may have had when he first started writing has shrivelled away as his views became narrowly refined into bigoted hate. I have no reason to believe his treatment of Superman will be any better than any of his more recent writing atrocities, where his beliefs have obviously seeped into.

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?

Oh don't be silly. He's not being discriminated against. He's free to do any job he wants, just not anything artistic under his bigotted name which allows people like you and me to easily decry it. /s

Joking aside, I'm actually quite torn on this one. On the one hand I do love proverbially punching assholes in the gut and frankly, such a public slapping is awesome. On the other hand, professionalism kinda demands being able to look past personality for work's sake. but then again, art is a bit different. I consider art to be an extension of the self, so there is quite a distinct connection between art and artist. If I can't bring myself to like the artist in any way, I'm hard-pressed to actually enjoy the art apart from that. :/

In any case, major kudos to Chris Sprouse to sticking to his opinion.

I find funny that people see those situations always in black or white. It is possible to separate the artist from his/her beliefs and it is also possible to not do that.

People have limits and it is smart to make decisions giving consideration to context.

It is not hypocrisy to accept some kind of dickness from an artist an refusing to support others. It is a sign that people have different sensibilities about different subjects.

Alan Moore is mostly arrogant and crass (it is actually kind of funny). I don't think bigotry and prejudice are that harmless, though. The community uproar kinds of proves that point.

Therumancer:

My point is that sure, to you OSC might be another Von Braun, but you can appreciate his work without agreeing with him as a person.

Of course it is possible. But there are clearly limits on that. Would you buy a beautiful painting from an artist that killed your parents?

This is not a black or white issue. Art is not a black and white issue. In some cases, the value of art is heavily influenced by context and in other cases less so (normally years after the artist death).

Jackel86:

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

Oh wow this guy had something to do with my favorite XBLA game!? I should have known about this, but I didn't.

Wait... didn't the story of Shadow Complex revolve around conquering San Francisco!? I always thought that part of the story was strange and nonsensical, but hearing this it now suddenly has amusing implications haha

Therumancer:
snip

I wish I could find that clapping .gif, because you sir/ma'am would have earned it from me. I'm basically in the same boat as you, so I know how that feels. A man's achievements should not be marred by his personal beliefs, they should be judged on their own grounds. Using the Hitler example, he might have been a terrible man, but he allowed research which found tabacco to be harmful, started environmentally friendly organizations, and brought in reforms to industry. He may have also killed off Jews, disabled (which by rights should piss me off) Gypsys and even the elderly and has created some of the worst things in history. But I can appreciate the good that he also did.

OT: Like I said above, even if he's funding anti-gay propaganda, his work should be based on his own skill and how he sets it out. If it's filled with homophobic/sexist bigotry that shouldn't be in there, all the power to ya. But wait until his work comes out - if it comes out - before dismissing it.

I love all the people spewing hate at him for being a bigot when they are just as much bigots as he is.

Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.

Are they stubbornly convinced that their own opinions are correct and superior? Yep
Are they prejudiced against him? Well with all the name calling, insults, and bashing I do believe this qualifies!

Stay classy escapist!

StewShearer:
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.

I agree with what you say to an extent, but not for the reasons I suspect you do. You are right that maintaining civility will be more helpful than lashing out at him, calling him worse than Hitler, and then running off. However I don't believe it will help get your views across to him or anyone else like him. Let's face it, people like him are way too close minded and full of themselves to ever even consider that they may have been wrong one time in their lives. Even if god himself came down from the heavens and told him he was wrong I still doubt he'd change his mind. What it does do however is make you look like the intelligent one. If somebody holds a different view from you and screams about you're a [insert long string of homosexual slurs here] sympathizers who's going to burn in hell with the rest of them, while you staycalm and collected, then everyone will associate that person's rant with the viewpoint as a whole. If you start shouting back then you both just look like idiots, and if they stay civil and you don't then you look like the bad guy and make everyone who shares your view look bad. Also, I don't believe that accepting others views are just different than yours really applies when the individual you disagree with is using the money you give him or her to actively campaign against what you see as a basic human right. Make being gay illegal, really? If that's true I don't see what he's trying to accomplish other than being a spiteful prick, since there's no way in hell any law like that will pass.

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 Spec Ops: 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.

Having an opinion does not protect you from being wrong. As such, OSC is a despicable bigot and DC was right to fire him. I find your boycott of Infinite and Spec Ops odd. They're both developed by American studios and published by 2K, so there's next to no anti-American sentiment. Also, you haven't played either game, so you can't really form an opinion about them one way or the other. I have played Spec Ops, and I'm looking forward to Infinite. What there is, is anti-war messages in both, which you have every right to avoid.

xyrafhoan:

Voxgizer:

DVS BSTrD:
Keep Sprouse, and make OSC work on Green Lantern instead :P

No, you keep him the hell away from my love. Put him on Archie or something.

Archie comics wouldn't even touch OSC with a 10-ft poll. Even they have standards and also adamantly defended having gay marriage featured as a cover story in their comic.

Personally I'm glad that the artist has dumped his responsibility in this story. Whatever talent in writing OSC may have had when he first started writing has shrivelled away as his views became narrowly refined into bigoted hate. I have no reason to believe his treatment of Superman will be any better than any of his more recent writing atrocities, where his beliefs have obviously seeped into.

I know but Archie was the first thing that came to mind. Maybe I should have said Image comics. Outlandish art mixed with bat-shit loony writers. Recipe for success, right?

captcha: be my friend

Sure, Cap.

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.

Except for the part where that's wrong. The people don't have to respect someone's free speech to the extent that it interferes with their own. Why is Card allowed to speak out and act against homosexuals while I'm not allowed to speak out and act for homosexual rights. Why must I be forced to support someone who will donate money to groups I find abhorrent in the name of free speech? By giving him unfettered rights to free speech you deny everyone who disagrees and that isn't what freedom of speech was meant.

Even the founder of the term freedom of speech, John Stewart Mill, said that society had the right to act against, educate and influence others who disagree. Freedom of speech is only against institutionalizing laws that would prevent the free expression of thoughts ideas and beliefs. Outside the legal realm it's fair play because freedom of speech works both ways. It amazes me how many people latch on to this concept without understanding it. Society has a right to call someone an a - hole and have nothing to do with them they just can't jail them for it.

The problem I have with this whole thing is that opposing people like Orson Scott Card who believe fervently in a sort of badness will only reinforce their terrible beliefs. ESPECIALLY When approached with cogent argument or information.

The only way to win against these sorts of people is either from their own self-epiphany or their eventual death.

Sadly, most people take their terrible beliefs to their graves. A repeated tragedy.

Even more sad is that these kinds of people are also folks who you would think should know better.

Writers, artists, engineers, mothers, fathers. Anybody really.

But at the same time, do not make the mistake of saying that people who harbor terrible ideas are terrible people. Surely, ideas can be awful, but it does not always mean they are a terrible person. (as hard as it may be sometimes given how prominently awful American Conservatives can be in the media)

Therumancer:

Friv:

Therumancer:
My basic attitude on the subject is that boycotting someone's work for being anti-gay is the same as doing it because it's pro-gay.

I'm going to stop you right there.

Being anti-gay is not a statement of opinion, or a political belief. It is not like taking a stand on gun control, or climate change, or taxes, or abortion.

Being anti-gay is about being a bigot. Full stop. There is no middle ground. It is morally identical to being antisemitic, or anti-black. There is no excuse for it. There is no justification for it. There is no rationale for it. There are explanations for it, and they can make me sympathetic to the person who is being a bigot, but an explanation is not an excuse. Being anti-gay is about declaring that someone else is lesser than you because they are not precisely like you, and makes you a worse person than you were before. It creates artificial barriers between people, and segregates a category of person into being second-class citizens for the rest of their lives, causing misery and pain to millions of people, for literally no reason at all beyond your own issues.

It is awful. It is indefensible. It is utterly wrong.

I do not get mad at groups like One Million Moms because they are trying to boycott someone for their beliefs. I get mad because those beliefs are utterly, inexcusably vile.

... which of course is what keeps things nasty and an ongoing battle, since a whole heck of a lot of people, close to 50% of the population in the US, and probably like 90% of the population globally (given that the second and third world which vastly outnumber the first world are hardly hotbeds of tolerance on this subject) disagree with you.

The extremity to which this stance is taken, and mirrored on other issues (ie the other side is entirely wrong and their position is utterly, indefensibly wrong) is a big part of why the country is such a mess right now, and why a lot of sociologists are predicting a civil war, not so much over gay rights, though that will be one of several related issues. With presidential elections being run by single digits and a lot of people on both sides rallying on the big issues and seeing the other side as basically being the devil, it's inevitable that at some point a seemingly major victory by one side or the other is going to lead to the other inevitably striking to "take back the country".

That said, on this paticular issue there are three major positions.

On the right wing side of things you have those who believe being homosexual should be illegal. This can be for a lot of differant reasons which I won't go into specifically, but they amount to moralistic arguements, defenses of traditional "family values" and social structure, and the continued enforcement of early "common laws" (as they applied to the US) which form the foundation of society. Up until fairly recently laws against buggery, homosexuality, and other things were actually on the books, and this side is pretty much for enforcing the law and maintaining a way of life that has existed up until the last couple of centuries, whether anyone agrees or disagrees with it.

On the left wing side of things you have those (like you) who believe in the complete and total acceptance of homosexuals, feeling there is nothing wrong with it on any level, and anything negative presented is by definition going to be a lie or propaganda presented by the other side.

In the middle you have people like me who are hated by both sides, who basically encourage compromise. That is to say that being homosexual shouldn't be illegal, but it should be registered and controlled at least for the short term. You have arguements on both sides about issues like whether gay men are more pre-disposed to attacking children, with both sides of things claiming to have debunked the other side as liars. Something that catches law enforcement and things like Code Adam training in an odd position of having to seperate practice and profiling from politically correct realities, and ignore patterns, and similar things, while fights over how powerful groups like NAMBLA are rage left and right. My basic arguement for intents and purposes tends to come down to registering gay men at least, prohibiting them from various areas they are not likely to want to go anyway, and then tracking and observing. In the long run if it turns out the left wing is right, and there are no issues over a period of time, so be it, and you can remove the
limits after a generation or two of observation, if the opposite is uncovered you have the option to implement more hardcore laws.

I'm not going to argue the point other than to say the middle ground is comparitively rare. To a left winger I'm evil because I'm not for total and unconditional acceptance. To a right winger on the subject I'm evil because I'm pretty much letting homosexuals do whatever they want with each other (I don't care what consenting adults do on their own time) and any pretensions of limitations are pointless, especially if your talking about long term data gathering and tracking that might not see any immediate effect if it ever does (which to a serious right winger just seems like an excuse to pacify some of them while letting the behavior go on).

As a result I'm hardly pro-gay, but I'm not anti-gay either. I'm not going to argue the point here, just making a statement about the way things break down as far as "sides" go.

That said, when it comes to someone's writing their political affiliation has nothing to do with anything, if they aren't talking on that paticular subject. I can appreciate tales told by people from positions I seriously do not
agree with. I also do not believe that we should have say scrapped the entire space program because Werner Von Braun
was pretty much the worst kind of person, going by what the Nazis did (who were anti-gay, anti-jewish, anti-gypsy, and pretty much anti- anyone not meeting their genetic ideal), I can respect his contributions to technology and Aeronautics without liking him, or approving with him trying to launch god knows how many V2s on civilians even after he pretty
much knew the war was over and it was pointless.

My point is that sure, to you OSC might be another Von Braun, but you can appreciate his work without agreeing with him as a person.

Your position is not a middle ground, it is one side of a binary choice: Do you think that gays are people? Y/N?

You have chosen No. The suggestion that gays should be registered is, in fact, wildly more right-wind and abhorrent than what the vast majority of people opposed to gay marriage are willing to commit to. Don't delude yourself by placing yourself in the middle of the scale.

For centuries, people argued that black people were less deserving of rights than whites. They said blacks committed more crimes, that they couldn't be trusted to run their own lives.

For centuries, people said that Jews were not deserving of rights, that they shouldn't be allowed to settle in non-Jewish parts of town or own property, that they needed to be registered by the government.

This is no different from that.

Every week I still fill my car full of petrol despite knowing full well what it took to get it there. I could not make it through a single day without the use of products and services that I either personally utilised or utilised by proxy that were only affordable to me because of the use of cheap exploitative foreign labour.

I wouldn't want to come across as a bit of a hypocrite for punishing Mr. Card on his political views in all honesty.

How long until Supes starts lasering anyone OSC doesn't like in the streets?

Why is it people only cry out that you have to respect that its someones personal opinion when its about being LGBT? If the headlines were about a guy writing Superman who hates black people, or thinks women should be beaten by their husbands then no-one in their right mind would be saying 'oh you have to separate the artist from their work'. I'm also not sure why people think that Scott Card is capable of separating his views from his work when his tie in to Shadow Complex turned the faceless goons into an 'evil liberal' plot to overthrow the government and oppress the poor, poor conservative states.

Personally I won't be buying it because DC comics hasn't put out a decent Superman story in over 20 years.

Ok im confused. All these people who are saying we don't have the right to comment on his personal beliefs or actions (as they aren't criminal) Isn't saying someone else s personal beliefs are wrong the entire basis of the civil rights movements over the last 100 years. The suffregetes said that thinking woman were brainless was wrong, Martin Luther (I cant remember the organisations name) said saying and thinking the blacks were unevolved was wrong.

Judging other peoples opinions is the whole basis of social change. Just because someone holds a view does not entitle them to being considered equally right.

The acceptance of such attitudes is why they continue and the continued monetary support only helps.

For me this really sucks, I wasn't aware of OSC attitudes and had quite enjoyed Enders game and was intending to read the rest. Now I will be neither reading nor buying his work.

Pfft, I would have walked out the second I found out I would be working with OSC. Though I'm pretty sure being an artist isn't easy, the dude might have a family to support and walking out might have been a very tough decision for him. Either way, I'm glad he walked out. We all have a right to refuse association with someone. I'm pretty sure OSC refuses to associate himself with LGBT people, so I consider this quite fair.

I hope this heralds the end of OSC's popularity. Though I foresee a lot of ignorant people blindly jumping in to defend him, as they are wont to do.

 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