Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

image

Orson Scott Card thinks the gay marriage issue is moot.

Orson Scott Card, writer of Ender's Game, has said some pretty awful things in the past about gay marriage. It "marks the end of democracy in America" according to a piece he wrote for the Mormon Times. In that same article he goes on to say that "when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary." Things have changed since then, and a potential boycott of his film now has Card pleading for tolerance. The gay marriage issue is moot after the recent Supreme Court decision, says he; can't we all just get along?

"Ender's Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984," Card now says. He is resigned to gay marriage becoming law throughout the land. "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened. But time and bank balances soften even the harshest of critics into mild curmudgeons. Perhaps this is the dawn of a new Age of Aquarius. We shall see.

Source: Entertainment Weekly, Mormon Times

Permalink

I really enjoyed his books, I've read them several times and probably will again.

But he'll never have any more of my money.

You can fuck whoever you want, just don't fuck me!

I have no doubts that if this movie wasn't coming he would have a much more visceral and vocal reaction to the Supreme Court decision.

Spineless son of a bitch.

Karloff:
"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

And the "it's bigoted it hate bigots" dog rears it's ugly ahead again.

Tell you what Card, I'd happily stop throwing shit at you once you stop spewing shit at everyone else.

Karloff:
An interesting plea, given that tolerance was definitely not on Card's agenda, at least not before his wallet was threatened.

I also like how he pretends that people in favour of equality have won.

There was a boycott planned?
Oh c'mon people. There's a word for you which I can't remember right now, and it's not a compliment. Why would you care about what he said? There's simply no point.

EDIT: I now see hate coming my way. Oh well. Not gonna retract.

Honestly, I don't care what he said in regards to viewing the film or not. A few years back almost 30% of my country voted for an extremist party and today over 30% votes for a party that I really don't agree with.

However, when I go to the baker and grocer or when some other tradesman comes around to fix stuff in the house, I don't question or regard their political or ideological thinking either (even though the chance that some of them voted for said extremists is high). It's the work they do or the product they sell that's important.

I think the same way about the book and film: judge those things on their own merits.

You can judge the person of the author outside of that.

Phrozenflame500:

Tell you what Card, I'd happily stop throwing shit at you once you stop spewing shit at everyone else.

Are you perhaps thinking of this?

image

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net
Read more at http://www.explosm.net/comics/3224/#3PbJgD1kqeiOoDq8.99

Err, that's not how it works Card. If you want people to be tolerant towards you, you must be tolerant towards them.

DVS BSTrD:
Yeah you have no right to ask for tolerance asshole.
"Well they better treat me better then I treated them."

And it's not like 'I don't think you deserve my money' is anywhere the same as 'I don't think you deserve equal rights.'

Unless a person incorporates their particular brand of prejudice into their works, I separate the creator from the creation. It seems like most people can't do that though.

FargoDog:
I have no doubts that if this movie wasn't coming he would have a much more visceral and vocal reaction to the Supreme Court decision.

Spineless son of a bitch.

Turns out his spine was an enemy of marriage.

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

Gee could he have been encouraged to 'soften' his views in the wake of his big movie release?

That's a yes. He is.

I'm never spending another cent on one of his properties. Yes, I DO think that an author's political opinions, if an author makes them public, should and indeed must color subsequent interpretations of (and the value of) their work, because LITERARY CRITICISM. Also, a man who can demand that we tolerate intolerance has...issues with reality.

Disclaimer: Speaker for the Dead is my favorite book OF ALL TIME U GAIZ.

...and then he remembered that LGBT's also buy movie tickets. Funny how that works

Living_Brain:
There was a boycott planned?
Oh c'mon people. There's a word for you which I can't remember right now, and it's not a compliment. Why would you care about what he said? There's simply no point.

EDIT: I now see hate coming my way. Oh well. Not gonna retract.

It's quite simple actually. He has the right to say whatever he wants, but that doesn't mean he'll escape consequences of what he chooses to say.

i.e.: He can choose to be a bigot, & those he offends can choose not to give him money.

Ain't capitalism grand?

hes a money grubbing hypocrite. at least i could of had some respect for the bigoted freak if he was still willing to stick to his beliefs if it was going to cost him money

Legion:

It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

With my Devil's Advocate hat on again, it might be said that homophobes believe gay people *do* 'bad things' - and they would be in the moral majority in most places and centuries too. So in that respect I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for him to ask us to tolerate his views. Which I do. I just don't want to give him any money to spend on propagating them.

Fdzzaigl:
Honestly, I don't care what he said in regards to viewing the film or not. A few years back almost 30% of my country voted for an extremist party and today over 30% votes for a party that I really don't agree with.

However, when I go to the baker and grocer or when some other tradesman comes around to fix stuff in the house, I don't question or regard their political or ideological thinking either (even though the chance that some of them voted for said extremists is high). It's the work they do or the product they sell that's important.

I think the same way about the book and game: judge those things on their own merits.

You can judge the person of the author outside of that.

THIS! People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

jetriot:

THIS! People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts.

Wait a second. A boycott doesn't destroy free speech. This is a free market and people are entitled to spend their money how they choose. Card is entitled to hold his views and to speak them wherever he wishes; but if the consequence is that people cease to respect him and stop buying his books, he has to accept that.

Another case of people confusing what the word tolerance means.

Living_Brain:
There was a boycott planned?
Oh c'mon people. There's a word for you which I can't remember right now, and it's not a compliment. Why would you care about what he said? There's simply no point.

EDIT: I now see hate coming my way. Oh well. Not gonna retract.

I don't particularly care about what he said--I mean, he's an utter idiot and a bigot, but I'm under no obligation to listen to his bullshit. I have no interest in doing anything that will put money in his pocket, given his actions which try to deprive fellow citizens of legal rights.

That all said, an organized/publicized boycott seems like a fundamentally stupid way of going about things. It just means the film gets extra, free publicity, and possibly even more viewers.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must resume laughing at Card for thinking "tolerance" means "ignoring someone's bigotry and active fight to further oppress already-oppressed people."

so why did they send kids into space again?

anyways, i doubt people will forgive him. it reached the interweb. and the net never forgets nor does it easily forgive.

Lieju:

DVS BSTrD:
Yeah you have no right to ask for tolerance asshole.
"Well they better treat me better then I treated them."

And it's not like 'I don't think you deserve my money' is anywhere the same as 'I don't think you deserve equal rights.'

It is when money is all you care about

Legion:

"Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," Card concludes.

Uh... why should they? Tolerating bigotry isn't a good thing you know, and claiming people are bigots for not tolerating bigotry is just idiotic.

It's akin to saying people who judge criminals are bigoted against criminals. You see, it's actually okay to be intolerant of people who do bad things.

"But you're only allowed to judge when it comes to homos other people. Not me."

P.S. thanks. I'm getting sick of people throwing around the the term "compromise" when what they really mean is "appeasing the smallest loudest, stupidest means segments of the population" because that's way more important then doing whats right. And of course those people are NEVER satisfied: They're still calling Obama a dictator even though he's kissed more ass then a Donkey prostitute.

jetriot:
People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Boycotts are simply a way for people to say en masse that they dissaprove. He can say what he wants but people will always judge him for that.

Um, you people do know that the power/responsibility being pushed back on the states is not akin to "gay marriage becoming law throughout the land", right?

Folks, I hate to break it to you, intolerance, especially when it comes under voicing an opinion, is not a crime. Being passionate about beliefs, also, not a crime. The vilification of anyone with different ideals is a far bigger problem for EVERYONE than whether or not a gay couple can get married. I used to be for gay marriage. Now I only support legal protections and equality for ANYONE who wants to share their estate. The hypocrisy of "gay rights" advocates is appalling to me and I refuse to condone that type of social bullying.

We ALL, gay, straight, and otherwise, CHOOSE the people we love. We are not pre-destined to be one way or another. That CHOICE is ours to make and we should ALL be free to make it. Cohabitation law as well as legal binding of estate should have always been the focal point of this argument. I should be able to CHOOSE who I partner with from a legal standpoint. Love, religion, marriage, that is not something that can or should be legislated by anyone. You can't make a law that makes people tolerant and we shouldn't be trying.

Card should have left his beliefs out of his work, separated the two. And if he can't, he should be willing to accept the consequences. Pandering to the masses is more offensive than anything he has said about his beliefs.

And for the record, being a bigot is not exclusive to the people against gay marriage, both sides of this coin are far too intolerant for my tastes...

The sociopolitical views of the author have no bearing on the quality of his work unless the work is centered on those views.

Ender's Game is decidedly NOT about gay marriage and is held as a classic work of science fiction, rightfully heavy with praise.

You are not promoting or supporting bigotry by seeing this movie or reading this book. You are promoting damn good storytelling and science fiction.

Besides, for all we know Card already got his check when he sold the rights to the studio/producers making the film. The rest may be going entirely towards recovering the budget and lining the pockets of those who made it.

For once I wish people could separate the views of a dickish author from the books and, worse still, it appears on a case by case basis. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and therefore opposed to homosexuality. You don't see people boycotting Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit to keep money from going to his family. What makes Card so different and special?

kailus13:

jetriot:
People sit on their high and mighty horses seeking to destroy others for their political/social/religious opinions when it is they who are seeking to destroy free speech with boycotts. They make people afraid to dissent or speak their mind because it is politically incorrect. In the past I fell for the same traps until I realized that my boycotts were simply a tool of political correctness and speech policing. His opinion is VALID. We disagree with his opinion but we don't want to make other people afraid to have the same opinion and voice it.

Free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. Boycotts are simply a way for people to say en masse that they dissaprove. He can say what he wants but people will always judge him for that.

I agree people are responsible for their words, I'm not saying he didn't have a right to say what he did or that he should apologize but not supporting his movie because he is a homophobe is not some high-horse PC anti-speech tactic.

Sheesh, a whole lot of reactive zombies on this thread. It was never about tolerance; it's about whose turn it is in the barrel. Okay, guys, who we shunning today? The fucked up homosexuals who defile "God's plan," or the fucked up conservatives who defile the "New Order?" The only difference is whose bidding you're serving now.

Guy writes books. Not great books, but okay books. Why make a big deal over what he thinks? I don't crawl up Beethoven's asshole to determine where he stood on the whole "Maria Antoinette scandal," before deciding whether I like Fur Elise, and I don't care where the guy who makes my pizza comes in on the Right to Life issue, unless of course, he's using afterbirth in the sauce.

The people with a rallying cry at the tip of their tongues for every goddamned occasion are nothing more angry assholes looking for a mob to join, but with MacBook Airs instead of pitchforks. Self-righteous, indignant liberals aren't any more attractive than self-righteous, indignant religious fundamentalists. They make for unpleasant company regardless which team shirt they're wearing this season.

Pickapok:
For once I wish people could separate the views of a dickish author from the books and, worse still, it appears on a case by case basis. J.R.R. Tolkien was a devout Catholic and therefore opposed to homosexuality. You don't see people boycotting Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit to keep money from going to his family. What makes Card so different and special?

It's very straightforward. Tolkien didn't actively campaign against gay rights. Therefore, his personal opinions are irrelevant. Card can be as homophobic as he likes in private. But if he's going to become a spokesman in the fight against equality, then some people are going to lose respect for him, and that may have an impact on his bank balance.

So he wants to play the old be tolerant of people's intolerance card? Sorry no, being intolerant of bigotry is neither hypocritical, nor required and I wouldn't recommend anyone be that way. Think what you want in private, but as soon as you begin publicly preaching bigotry you put a target on your back and everyone who takes a shot at it is perfectly justified.

carlj:
Sheesh, a whole lot of reactive zombies on this thread. It was never about tolerance; it's about whose turn it is in the barrel. Okay, guys, who we shunning today? The fucked up homosexuals who defile "God's plan," or the fucked up conservatives who defile the "New Order?" The only difference is whose bidding you're serving now.

Guy writes books. Not great books, but okay books. Why make a big deal over what he thinks? I don't crawl up Beethoven's asshole to determine where he stood on the whole "Maria Antoinette scandal," before deciding whether I like Fur Elise, and I don't care where the guy who makes my pizza comes in on the Right to Life issue, unless of course, he's using afterbirth in the sauce.

The people with a rallying cry at the tip of their tongues for every goddamned occasion are nothing more angry assholes looking for a mob to join, but with MacBook Air instead of pitchforks. Self-righteous, indignant liberals aren't any more attractive than self-righteous, indignant religious fundamentalists. They make for unpleasant company regardless which team shirt they're wearing this season.

Beethoven is dead and not actively engaged in political movements to do anything. This guy is and wants to institutionalize unequal treatment for 10% of the population. He is part of a group of people that have for a long time mentally and physically abused those around them that think differently, look differently or act differently.

If you want to be the naive uninformed consumer then be one. Don't demand other people share in the ignorance of the products they support and thus the people behind the products. Why put ingredients on packages? If it's tastes good and you like it there is no problem with it right? Who cares if your chicken burgers are 70% sawdust.

If the person behind the product is a piece of shit, he is working towards make his bullshit beliefs effective law and on top of that really isn't that good of a writer then you should not ignore the effects of supporting this man financially.

carlj:
Sheesh, a whole lot of reactive zombies on this thread. It was never about tolerance; it's about whose turn it is in the barrel. Okay, guys, who we shunning today? The fucked up homosexuals who defile "God's plan," or the fucked up conservatives who defile the "New Order?" The only difference is whose bidding you're serving now.

Actually, the difference is that one group gets flack for being different and the other gets flack for being immoral bigots who would like to see other people oppressed and their rights denied. Some people seem to miss those facts.

I really liked Ender's Game, and a few of the sequel books (although I think the quality was on a slow decline for that series.)

Still, I didn't see any anti-gay stuff in his books. So whatever.

Although... I didn't really see what he actually said or did. Can someone show me what he did?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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