Ender's Game Author Asks For Tolerance After Boycott Threat

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

Yosharian:

bravetoaster:

KOMega:
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?

There isn't any anti-gay stuff in Ender's Game as far as I'm aware (although if you want bizarre anti-gay stuff in science fiction, Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series and Frank Herbert, but... yeah).

Buuuulllshit.

Dune does not contain anything that's anti-gay.

Have you read the books, lately? (If not--do it! They're still fantastic! ...just stop after Frank Herbert died. Or after God Emperor.)

As I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere in far greater depth, the Baron is the only homosexual character (at least that I can recall--certainly in the first book) and, while he's brilliant, he is a completely vile human being (and it's been argued that his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was, although I can't pretend to know Herbert's intent). Also, if I recall correctly, there's a part later in the series where Duncan outright says (or tries to kill, even?) something about how disgusting homosexuality is. NOT a major theme or point or plot element to any of the stuff, but it's really jarring when I re-read the series a year or so back.

carpathic:

I am not an expert on American Law, but while throwing the decision back to the states does not make it "gay marriage throughout the land" as it were, it does do two crucial things:
1. Delegate the decision to the states
2. Dictate that it is unconstitutional for states to create an institution that is like marriage but inferior in legal standing.

So, states can call it what they want, but in order to exist as a law that cannot be challenged, it has to comply with the equality aspect. So, separate but equal isn't quite there, but is almost there and in the states represents a good start.

1. Which delegates it to the people.
2. Ok, first off, they didn't write new law, in fact the Supreme Court can't do that. Secondly, what they said was that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who can and can't get married, they deferred this decision to the states, and the people of those states.

As I stated, all they really did was decide to not decide.

jetriot:

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.

However, if your plumber used his standing as the best plumber in town to spout hate speech and perhaps stand as a candidate for the BNP, you would be well within your rights to refuse to do business with him, tell your friends not to do business with him and actively campaign against him.

Just as my plumber would be entitled to do the same if I used my wholly imaginary internet fame to publicly push my (theoretical) radical anarchist politics.

Orson Scott Card decided to use his standing as an author to promote his extremist viewpoints. He shouldn't be upset when people actively boycott him and his projects. He is the one who made thing political.

Jarimir:
If you are so keen about word choice, perhaps you can point out where I told you or any community how to think or what to believe.

If you are a "true minority" then you live with the windfall of the government interceding on your behalf and forcing local communities to grant you equal status despite how they would vote. If you are a "true minority" then there are still people that believe you don't deserve equal status. Notice how they still believe that, despite not being able to deprive you of that status.

As a member of the gay community that is all I want, equal status, with people still free to think that I don't deserve it. I would rather that they did. I feel I have a right to speak up and say I deserve equality. I am sorry if this disturbs you or makes you anxious or resentful. You have the right to speak up about that. People boycotting Ender's Game are exercising their right and giving their voice to the free market.

You generalize the opposition and you dismiss their beliefs as bigotry and hate. That implies that people who don't think like you, don't count.

As someone who actually respects the constitution, regardless of my skin color, that was bad law then just as it is bad law now, and the truth of the matter is that there should not need to be a law regarding race. Last time I checked I was a human being, making laws about race only serves to reinforce the idea that we are different. So I don't agree with that as the ONLY solution to the problem of civil rights.

And as I stated. I agree with boycotting things that go against your beliefs, but I don't believe in forcing those beliefs on anyone without due process. Equal status? Last time I checked you had to actually tell someone your sexual orientation for them to know about it. In ALL things other than the currently flawed legalities of marriage, you have EXACTLY the same rights as anyone else. Gay people don't have to ride at the back of the bus, they don't have special drinking fountains. They are not treated by SOCIETY as subhuman. I am continually offended by the comparison between gay "rights" and civil rights. There is sexual discrimination, no doubt, but that is no where near the same thing as racial discrimination IMO.

My estate and my guardianship should be a legal contract and I should be able to enter that contract with ANYONE I choose. Marriage is a tradition that was used to celebrate that contract. By the standards set forth by the TRADITION of this country, marriage is between a man and a woman. Some states have decided to alter that tradition, some have not. The ones that have are not heroes, and the ones who have not are not villains.

The more this issue is debated by politicians and pundits, the more it becomes about propaganda and the less it becomes about people. You want to get "married" right now? Either move to a place where it is recognized(cause you can join with someone else of your choosing no matter where you live, legal recognition is your problem not the "right" to marry), or work from where you are at and rally people to your cause, understanding that it is ok for people to not agree with you and your beliefs.

And again, Card should be ashamed more for pandering than for having his beliefs IMO.

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Quick question.

Would you consider me a racist if I gave a significant percentage of my earnings to the Ku Klux Klan, even if that work didn't attack the African-American community in any way?

I don't really know what the KKK gets up to these days, but I don't think it's comparable to what Card is doing. He is on the board of directors for the National Organization for Marriage, which was formed specifically to pass Prop 8 in California. And chances are he had money as well as personal participation going into that project as well. I don't know what the KKK does, but I certainly know what the NOM[1] and other groups like it get up to. And those groups DO attack the gay community, actively and directly.

[1] lol

Helmholtz Watson:

bravetoaster:

It's confusing how you (and others) are trying to bring free speech into this. Seriously--no one's trying to keep you from being allowed to be a bigot have an unpopular opinion. Nor is anyone trying to do the same to Card. Free speech has never entered any part of this equation.

You'll have to forgive me for fixing that "typo" for you, I rather not respond to a post that starts off poisoning the well. That said, you need to look at the person I quoted because they were not saying how their going to boycott Card's books and movie(something I have no problem with them doing), but in fact they were comparing the notion of tolerating(which isn't a code word for accepting)an unpopular opinion with tolerating criminal behavior/acts. So when you equate having a unpopular opinion with criminal acts, the subject of freedom of speech does come into question.

Not a typo--being a bigot is different from having an unpopular opinion. My opinion that raw, lukewarm tofu tastes better than a perfectly-cooked steak is unpopular (granted, that's a fake example), but has nothing to do with hating others or being devoted to my own prejudices. Bigots may, depending on time and place, have either popular or unpopular opinions; that doesn't change what they are. Card is a bigot who works to deny legal rights to US citizens. While he is not breaking the law in doing so, "tolerating" someone trying to deny other people their rights is not the same as "tolerating" other people living their own, free lives. "Tolerating" homosexuality means not giving a fuck about the fact that adults who you don't know and aren't in love with or having sex with are, completely independently of you, in love with each other and having sex when they want to. "Tolerating" Card's actions means standing idly by while someone tries to deny US citizens equal legal rights.

Helmholtz Watson:

bravetoaster:
Just like you're free to be a bigot, the rest of us are free to call you a bigot and were never under any obligation to give you our money, bigot or not.

Like I said, I'm not opposed to people choosing how they spend their own money on entertainment. That said, your right about calling bigots out on their bigotry, because I am also free to call out you or anybody else on your bigotry and intolerance towards those who's religious views don't conform to your values. Case in point, Judaism is well known for Leviticus and I would be well within my right to call you an intolerant bigot if you started telling Jews how horrible their religion was because it didn't conform to your values.

I don't get the sense that you know what the word properly means: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Prejudices are judgements made without actual knowledge of something, as indicated by the "pre-" prefix and "judge" root. Bigots hate people they don't know or understand because they've prejudged them to be worth of hatred and intolerance.

Religion's way off-topic, but let me just address your example real fast: You would not be a bigot for telling Jews that their religion is horrible. You'd be a bigot if you obstinately hated and/or could not tolerate people who are Jewish because they are Jewish (note: not because of their personal beliefs or actions, but simply because they belong to that group).

Lieju:
I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

I'm planning to see this movie, but I'm not going to pay for it.
(I'm talking about legal ways, I'll find someone to borrow it from, see it on tv or get it from a library)

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

KingsGambit:

Lieju:
I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

I'm planning to see this movie, but I'm not going to pay for it.
(I'm talking about legal ways, I'll find someone to borrow it from, see it on tv or get it from a library)

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

If the man has shown himself capable of publicly campaigning for views you find morally reprehensible, I think it's rather smart not to provide him with funds he might potentially use for this purpose. But if you can enjoy his artistic vision without rewarding him financially, and you do so legally, I think that's very sensible. You give him his due respect as an artist without enabling him as a bigot. Win/win.

KingsGambit:

Lieju:
I'd say not giving my money to someone is a pretty civilized form of opposing them. They aren't entitled to my money.

I'm planning to see this movie, but I'm not going to pay for it.
(I'm talking about legal ways, I'll find someone to borrow it from, see it on tv or get it from a library)

It is a civilised form of protest, I just think it's a dumb one.

And if you watch it, legally or otherwise after what you said, then that is hypocrisy. You want his content but don't want to reward him for his work because you disagree with his political view. I thoroughly disagree with his view but I think what you're doing is on par or worse. If you want to take a moral high ground, don't watch the show.

The wholesale rejection of art is illogical and damaging to the narrative of culture. Not funding Card is a service to society, observing his art is a service to culture.

Zombie_Moogle:

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?

I agree completely.

I loved his books, but am unwilling to support a person who I believe is a bigot. To me this is the same as my decision not to buy an XBone because of their anti-consumer policies (not just always on, but also the advertising and Kinect BS). People who agree with him are free to help support him.

I'll admit that the decision is easy for me because the previews for the movie look awful. How the crap do you show the climax of the movie in the preview?

People who say I boycott his stuff because he is intolerant. If you are against intolerance why are intolerant of him? Will you stop saying chuck Norris jokes because he is a christian and against gay marriage? Will you stop listening to U2 because Bono does an interview with Focus on the Family? As a libertarian I believe people have the liberty to believe what they want to believe. His personal belief is that gay marriage is wrong. Well big whoop he believes differently than you that doesn't mean you have to say "I will never support his stuff with money." Well if you want to do that than fine but you are denying an author who has written a good scifi series his livelihood. Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

Mumorpuger:
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.

This, because he doesn't.

Heck, you wouldn't even say he is homophobe trough his work. I just finished reading Ender's Game second time and I remember quite clearly that only two styles of clothing In Battle School were uniform or being naked and so armies (mostly composed of boys) usually spent time in their room naked and there wasn't any fuss about it.

So if he doesn't promote his ideas trough his work he doesn't deserve any more attention or boycott than any other homophobic person you may know.

theApoc:

carpathic:

I am not an expert on American Law, but while throwing the decision back to the states does not make it "gay marriage throughout the land" as it were, it does do two crucial things:
1. Delegate the decision to the states
2. Dictate that it is unconstitutional for states to create an institution that is like marriage but inferior in legal standing.

So, states can call it what they want, but in order to exist as a law that cannot be challenged, it has to comply with the equality aspect. So, separate but equal isn't quite there, but is almost there and in the states represents a good start.

1. Which delegates it to the people.
2. Ok, first off, they didn't write new law, in fact the Supreme Court can't do that. Secondly, what they said was that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to decide who can and can't get married, they deferred this decision to the states, and the people of those states.

As I stated, all they really did was decide to not decide.

For sure, I never said they wrote a new law. The importance here though is not that they said "Not the role of the federal government". Oddly, the USA can be a very loose confederation, and in many areas of governance States are more powerful than the federal government (not quite as powerful as individual provinces here in Canada, but pretty close). What is key, is the message being sent to the States is, "we will strike down laws that discriminate". So, the States have a definition of what they cannot do, or at least what will be "challengeable" and that gives a clear road map for law makers. What is interesting to me is that the supreme court with arguably the most extremely conservative (please see: http://moneyocracy.tumblr.com/post/27339787284/roberts-reign for a rough idea) bent in recent history did not choose to either ignore the challenge or to rule in support of DOMA but instead pushed things down. In Canada when that happened, Gay Marriage followed. Some Premiers at the time talked about invoking the "Notwithstanding" Clause in the constitution, but none of them did - the message was clear. You could call it anything you wanted, but if it did not afford equal standing under the law, then it would be ruled unconstitutional.

So yes, you are correct the supreme court did not declare "Gay Marriage Across the Land!" but they did say "Look, it is up the states to do decide" and in the end, it won't be particularly different.

I mean ultimately this was a good example of why you should not mess with a wealthy senior citizen. The woman in question started the challenge because she was expected to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes because her spouse was not accorded that status. So, a person with lots of money and a tonne of time got angry and our society becomes a more equal, more fair place. Put that in the 'W' column as far as I am concerned.

Ihrgoth:
Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

The difference is, one is selective bigotry based on the arcane teachings of a tribe of xenophobic penis mutilating middle eastern conquerors, and the other is based on basic romantic (in the literary sense) humanity.

One is good for society, one isn't. Feel free to delude yourself on which is which.

TsunamiWombat:

Ihrgoth:
Tell me how is you boycotting his books/movie and saying hatemonger, bigot, any different than that deplorable idiotic westboro baptist church saying "God hates gays" (which he doesn't he loves all sinners or at least that is what the bible teaches). The only difference being which side of the fence you are on.

The difference is, one is selective bigotry based on the arcane teachings of a tribe of xenophobic penis mutilating middle eastern conquerors, and the other is based on basic romantic (in the literary sense) humanity.

One is good for society, one isn't. Feel free to delude yourself on which is which.

I think the bigger issue is that there isn't any similarity between the two in the first place. Ihrgoth is either trolling or not going to understand that, so it's silly to waste your time on it.

Ihrgoth:
People who say I boycott his stuff because he is intolerant. If you are against intolerance why are intolerant of him?

Yes, not supporting someone financially IS intolerance. Taking the piss?

Will you stop saying chuck Norris jokes because he is a christian and against gay marriage?

Chuck Norris jokes exist because he's a self-aggrandising dick who people decided to mock. According to your intolerance theory, shouldn't those jokes increase?

Will you stop listening to U2 because Bono does an interview with Focus on the Family?

I don't listen to U2 because they make bad music. That won't change even if Bono suddenly decides to single-handedly gay marry every couple in the US.

As a libertarian I believe people have the liberty to believe what they want to believe.

Surely as a libertarian, you support the free market and self determination, right? Because despite your libertarian beliefs....

Well if you want to do that than fine but you are denying an author who has written a good scifi series his livelihood.

This sounds like you think he's entitled to our money.

Especially funny since most libertarians support the right to FIRE any employee at-will.

Please. He would have ended WWII with the Enola Straight. He wants Ben-Gay to just be Ben. He wants the Flintstones to stop having a gay old time and just have an old time.

HE DOES NOT LIKE TEH GAY!

Ihrgoth:
As a libertarian I believe people have the liberty to believe what they want to believe. His personal belief is that gay marriage is wrong. Well big whoop he believes differently than you that doesn't mean you have to say "I will never support his stuff with money."

Is it my money or not?

Good, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it.

Cut the shit, and quit wasting our goddamn time.

bravetoaster:

Yosharian:

bravetoaster:

There isn't any anti-gay stuff in Ender's Game as far as I'm aware (although if you want bizarre anti-gay stuff in science fiction, Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series and Frank Herbert, but... yeah).

Buuuulllshit.

Dune does not contain anything that's anti-gay.

Have you read the books, lately? (If not--do it! They're still fantastic! ...just stop after Frank Herbert died. Or after God Emperor.)

As I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere in far greater depth, the Baron is the only homosexual character (at least that I can recall--certainly in the first book) and, while he's brilliant, he is a completely vile human being (and it's been argued that his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was, although I can't pretend to know Herbert's intent). Also, if I recall correctly, there's a part later in the series where Duncan outright says (or tries to kill, even?) something about how disgusting homosexuality is. NOT a major theme or point or plot element to any of the stuff, but it's really jarring when I re-read the series a year or so back.

I have read the book 'Dune' many, many times.

1) You said 'Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it', not 'the Dune series is kind of creepily loaded with it'.

2) Baron being the only homosexual character is incidental and not to be taken as commentary on homosexuality

3) It may be argued that "his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was" however this is not a fact, and not objectively true looking at the source material, this is an interpretation nothing more

4) "later in the series" We're discussing Dune, not the series

5) The statement made by Duncan can be interpreted many ways. Just because one particular character expresses an opinion on homosexuality does not mean the entire series is 'anti-gay'.

Dune as a work of art deserves more than this amateurish mud-slinging.

TheDeadlights:

aggers:
i hope the ' death of the author' happens more then figuratively this time.

Oh come on, don't stoop to that level. You cant beat hate with more hate.

yes your right its just when it popped up it reminded me of all the stuff, me being a bit of a homosexual and all

Oh no, he had an opinion that old people have! Quick, martyr him so that people will know not to have opinions of their own. *sigh*

The problem is that the government foolishly calls the license they give out a "marriage" license. Marriage in many cultures is a religious institution rather than a simple legal union that the license is. This makes ignorant people think that laws impacting this license are synonymous with laws impacting their actual religious institution. That redefAs such, you generally can't see people trying to protect their religious institution (even erroneously) as being intolerant so much as defensive.

If you really want to solve this ridiculous issue. Just rename the marriage license to something like a Civil Union for everyone to get, hetero or homo or whatever. Civil Union would have been perfect since this is a financial and legal union but the term itself carries baggage with it. But some similar term would sufficiently separate the government institution of a legal union from a religious institution people are currently confusing it with.

Frankly, with the separation of church and state being such an important practice I'm surprised that anyone has allowed the government to hold onto this relic of the Catholic Church being in power. In America, marriage licenses were used to keep people of difference races and religions from marrying. This really isn't something the government should have control over. Religiously, I wouldn't think practitioners of any faith should want the government to control it to any degree either.

In this way, the controversy is broken as the association is broken. Christians, for example, can start to realize that in their religion it's their God that puts people together in marriage and not the US government or some such nonsense. The gay community may then have all the rights and responsibilities they've wanted all along with significantly less resistance. Marriage would be the ceremony individuals have on their own time in their own faith just like it is now. A rose by any other name, if you will.

But we've got to understand that these people see themselves as defending a belief system moreso than putting someone down. That's an important distinction albeit with the same result regardless. Just looking at it from someone else's shoes can make a big difference rather than assuming it's all one thing or nothing.

HyenaThePirate:

bravetoaster:

...are you somehow under the impression that people work on a film for free, then only get paid after the fact, depending on how well a film does? Those actors, special effects people, and everyone working their butts off to build sets and light scenes and make things look fancy and shiny and pretty for the screen--they get paid. They do their job, get paid, and go onto their next job.

No but the films you work on in the film industry are essentially your RESUME. If you work on a crappy film that impacts your ability to get hired on to OTHER jobs. Like it or not, the success or failure of a film has resonating effects on all people involved. Sure the STUDIO takes it in the shorts over the money spent in the budget, but even then people are affected in ways that are hard to quantify. The studio is ALSO not responsible for Card's personal behavior and actions and allegiances, so why should THEY suffer financially for it? You aren't hurting HIM, he's already been paid right?
But you ARE hurting the films that the studio may cancel that might be in production because they took a big hit on a film that performed poorly.
That loss might result in other people not getting their chance to break into acting, or special effects work, or script writing or directing or working behind cameras.

So yeah, to simply dismiss it as "No one takes a hit but the studio!" is short-sighted at best, and willfully indignant at worst.

You're really thinking about actors. They're the only ones whose resumes are tied to how well a film does financially.

Production teams/companies are more "normal jobs" and hirings based on things like showing up to work on time, getting along with crew members, listenin; basically your everyday office conduct, so that any issues with production should be as a result of the star power screwing up, not the company.

Sure, maybe the head of production might have a tougher time if he lets things fall apart, but the financial success/failure of a film doesn't really impact how the gaffer's resume looks.

bravetoaster:

Yosharian:

bravetoaster:

There isn't any anti-gay stuff in Ender's Game as far as I'm aware (although if you want bizarre anti-gay stuff in science fiction, Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series and Frank Herbert, but... yeah).

Buuuulllshit.

Dune does not contain anything that's anti-gay.

Have you read the books, lately? (If not--do it! They're still fantastic! ...just stop after Frank Herbert died. Or after God Emperor.)

As I'm sure has been discussed elsewhere in far greater depth, the Baron is the only homosexual character (at least that I can recall--certainly in the first book) and, while he's brilliant, he is a completely vile human being (and it's been argued that his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was, although I can't pretend to know Herbert's intent). Also, if I recall correctly, there's a part later in the series where Duncan outright says (or tries to kill, even?) something about how disgusting homosexuality is. NOT a major theme or point or plot element to any of the stuff, but it's really jarring when I re-read the series a year or so back.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Back the fuck up buddy.

The Baron being the only homosexual in the books isn't a commentary on homosexuals. How many other gay characters are there in popular literature?

Next, the Baron is vile because he's a cruel, vicious, sadistic, manipulative, twisted, evil, pedophile. He'd be just as evil if it were young girls he was raping. Even if you want to argue that FH meant his homosexuality to be "the final touch", that's still a subjective opinion, and not fact.

As far as the Duncan Idaho bit. Yes, when the ghola was reawakened, and he saw that a lot of Fish Speakers were lesbians, he was outraged. His outrage is seen as immature, and the locals tell him to chill the fuck out, and to quit being so dumb. Even if Duncan was homophobic, that's one character, and not how the whole series is

If you're going to say that Dune is "creepily loaded" with anti-gay stuff, you need better examples

Yosharian:
1) You said 'Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it', not 'the Dune series is kind of creepily loaded with it'.

I said "Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series"--my implication that I was referring to the entire Dune series may have been lost, but that was the original intent and, I think, still implicit in the actual quote.

2) Baron being the only homosexual character is incidental and not to be taken as commentary on homosexuality

Unless you have something from Herbert, himself, saying so, then you don't know that.

3) It may be argued that "his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was" however this is not a fact, and not objectively true looking at the source material, this is an interpretation nothing more

Correct. It is, nonetheless, valid literary criticism unless Herbert himself has explicitly stated otherwise (and, even then, it's still a valid point of discussion, even if the author did not intend for it to say anything in and of itself).

5) The statement made by Duncan can be interpreted many ways. Just because one particular character expresses an opinion on homosexuality does not mean the entire series is 'anti-gay'.

"Load" was the completely wrong word on my part. I'm trying to think of the correct one and drawing a total blank, for whatever reason. In either case, my original point was that, buried amid the couple thousand pages of text, are little bits that are strikingly anti-gay (or at least anachronistic, reading it in this era).

Dune as a work of art deserves more than this amateurish mud-slinging.

I wasn't slinging mud (and, if I had been, rest assured it wouldn't've been done as an amateur). There's no real mud to sling at Dune (the first novel or the series)--some criticisms, sure, but if you can't find any faults in that much text, you're not paying attention. It's a damned fine series and the first book remains the standard by which I judge similar writing and storytelling.

Lionsfan:
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa.

Back the fuck up buddy.

I'm very much backing up. See above--I used the absolutely wrong word for what I had meant. That was sloppy and stupid on my part, thanks for calling me out on it.

Fox12:
Honestly, hate the man, not the book. Guess what?

1) John Lennon was a wife beater. He was possessive and cruel, and was paranoid his wife would cheat on him, even as he cheated on her. He also admitted to beating his former girlfriends as a younger man. People still listen to the Beatles (though I admittedly don't).

2) Benjamin Franklin also cheated on his wife, and when she was dying her last request was to see him one last time. He denied her. Seriously, the guy was a douche. People still read Poor Richards Almanac, and his advice is still fantastic.

3) Eric Clapton is a racist. People still listen to him. So was Dr. Seuss and...Abraham Lincoln. http://markii.wordpress.com/2007/02/19/racist-quote-by-abe-lincoln-happy-black-history-month/

4) HP Lovecraft. Oh boy, a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite, where does it end?

5) Martin Luther King had an affair.

6) Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. He had children with one of them, and then sold all the slaves (including his children) in order to pay off his debts. His political ideas concerning liberty are still true, even if he was a hypocrite himself.

7) Everyone know JFK cheated. Not everyone knows he had several women deported out of the country in order to keep it secret.

The point is, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe, Ender Wiggin isn't. Ender's game is a fantastic book, and absolutely nothing in it so much as hints at homophobia. The people I mentioned achieved great things, helped people, or produced great works of art, despite doing or believing terrible things. I still love MLK, despite what he did to his wife and family. Card is a product of his generation and upbringing, and while I'll continue to disagree with him on, well, pretty much everything, I'll continue to enjoy his works because their great pieces of fiction completely independent of their writer. I'll probably see the film too, assuming it gets good reviews.

This isn't exactly like those situations. A lot of the things you mentioned were sexual affairs, which I believe is entirely private unless say, JFK or John Lennon or MLK actually killed the women they had affairs with. A lot of the things you mentioned were also representative of the time that these people lived in, Thomas Jefferson for example. As far as I know (not American) all the founding fathers owned slaves.

In Scott Card's case, not only has he dragged his personal views out into the public eye, but he's actively campaigned against homosexuals and for the increasing diminished rights of homosexuals, specifically the right to get married. That makes him far worse than any of the people you mentioned. He even claimed that he would help overthrow the government if gays were allowed to get married. You're perfectly free to enjoy and support his work but speaking personally I would never put money in this man's pocket, especially given what he'll most likely put it towards.

theApoc:
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...

^ This right here. I would also like to elaborate as to why. Marriage has always been a religious institution. In the US of A religion and politics is supposed to be separated. By making laws about Marriage, the government is effectively restricting people's religious beliefs (which it is not supposed to, but has been doing for some time). On the other hand, part of what goes along with marriage is the legal aspect. For the time being lets call that legal aspect legal joining. That part of marriage should be protected under law and allowed to all people, regardless of beliefs or sexuality. This part is what dictates your taxes and eligibility for certain benefits/restrictions. Since this is an aspect of the government, it should be allowed to all people seeking to participate in it.

In doing this they would also need to separate the words marriage and legal joining to illustrate the differences. At the same time, marriage should be allowed to whomever that particular church gives permission to marry and shouldn't be affected by law period. Meaning that even if a state doesn't allow "gay joining", they should be allowed to be married by a church official of whatever. I know that christian churches tend to not allow gays, but there are plenty of more tolerant religions out there, and they could seek one of them out.

One of the lighting techs on Avengers: Assemble was a homophobe... so basically you're all hypocrites.

Exile714:
One of the lighting techs on Avengers: Assemble was a homophobe... so basically you're all hypocrites.

Oh no! And I looked at the lighting and everything :(

Exile714:
One of the lighting techs on Avengers: Assemble was a homophobe... so basically you're all hypocrites.

You're being purposely facetious right? I honestly can't tell.

bravetoaster:

Yosharian:
1) You said 'Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it', not 'the Dune series is kind of creepily loaded with it'.

I said "Dune's kind of creepily loaded with it, at times... still love the series"--my implication that I was referring to the entire Dune series may have been lost, but that was the original intent and, I think, still implicit in the actual quote.

2) Baron being the only homosexual character is incidental and not to be taken as commentary on homosexuality

Unless you have something from Herbert, himself, saying so, then you don't know that.

3) It may be argued that "his homosexuality was meant to emphasize how vile he was" however this is not a fact, and not objectively true looking at the source material, this is an interpretation nothing more

Correct. It is, nonetheless, valid literary criticism unless Herbert himself has explicitly stated otherwise (and, even then, it's still a valid point of discussion, even if the author did not intend for it to say anything in and of itself).

5) The statement made by Duncan can be interpreted many ways. Just because one particular character expresses an opinion on homosexuality does not mean the entire series is 'anti-gay'.

"Load" was the completely wrong word on my part. I'm trying to think of the correct one and drawing a total blank, for whatever reason. In either case, my original point was that, buried amid the couple thousand pages of text, are little bits that are strikingly anti-gay (or at least anachronistic, reading it in this era).

Dune as a work of art deserves more than this amateurish mud-slinging.

I wasn't slinging mud (and, if I had been, rest assured it wouldn't've been done as an amateur). There's no real mud to sling at Dune (the first novel or the series)--some criticisms, sure, but if you can't find any faults in that much text, you're not paying attention. It's a damned fine series and the first book remains the standard by which I judge similar writing and storytelling.

1) Then you should have said 'The Dune Series'. Dune is not loaded, creepily or otherwise, with such things.

2) I can say that with complete certainty because I have read the book Dune many, many times. I judge the art on its own merits, not by the author's. Analysing the book, I see absolutely no evidence that the Baron's homosexuality was intended as commentary on this sexual preference, and I challenge you to bring some to the table.

3) Valid literary criticism? You have not proven such. Feel free to try. I can say 'Wuthering Heights is shit' and it's an interpretation of the book. That doesn't make it valid.

5) I know exactly what moment you are referring to, and no it does not prove what are you are attempting to say about the Dune Series.

You're mud-slinging because you aren't providing evidence for anything you say.

Lionsfan:
The Baron being the only homosexual in the books isn't a commentary on homosexuals. How many other gay characters are there in popular literature?

Next, the Baron is vile because he's a cruel, vicious, sadistic, manipulative, twisted, evil, pedophile. He'd be just as evil if it were young girls he was raping. Even if you want to argue that FH meant his homosexuality to be "the final touch", that's still a subjective opinion, and not fact.

As far as the Duncan Idaho bit. Yes, when the ghola was reawakened, and he saw that a lot of Fish Speakers were lesbians, he was outraged. His outrage is seen as immature, and the locals tell him to chill the fuck out, and to quit being so dumb. Even if Duncan was homophobic, that's one character, and not how the whole series is

If you're going to say that Dune is "creepily loaded" with anti-gay stuff, you need better examples

This, basically. Why we're in even talking about homosexuality when the Baron is a pedophile, is beyond me. Pedophilia is not the same as homosexuality. Also, he is seduced by a Bene Gesserit in the lore, so it's not at all clear that he even is a classic homosexual at all, it might just be a sadistic power thing that he gets a kick out of, similar to prison rapists. So commentary on homosexuals it aint.

barbzilla:
Marriage has always been a religious institution. In the US of A religion and politics is supposed to be separated. By making laws about Marriage, the government is effectively restricting people's religious beliefs (which it is not supposed to, but has been doing for some time).

Reality disagrees with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States

Religion has absolutely nothing to do with marriage as it is being discussed. Marriage is a legal contract that permits them certain legal rights and responsibilities (see above link).

No one in the government gives a damn (or should give a damn, or can do anything about) your little religious crap. You have fun with your verbal agreements with your God or gods or whatever you happen to form religious marriage-y agreements with. If your religion allows you to marry someone or something, go for it. The US government does not care about your religious practices (so long as they're not breaking any laws).

The government and its citizens are concerned with legal rights and people who are, for no reason, being denied equal rights under US law. Your religion does not give you the special right you to deny other people legal rights.

How about no?
When you piss people off with bigotry, you can't seriously expect to dodge the consequences by saying shit like "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."

Being tolerant of other's sexual disposition is not the same as tolerating assholes.

I'm sorry Orson, I think you're a fantastic writer I really do, but you're not getting my money. If you were just kind of a prick, I could get over it, but I can't bring myself to just sweep all the statements you've made under the rug.

Isn't the purpose of a boycott generally to change something? What is the goal of this boycott? What are we hoping to get out of it? Is it to prevent people from publically stating their opinions if they do not allign with ours? Is he actively oppressing a people? Sounds like he just made a political statement that people don't agree with. Oh noes.

Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion albeit incorrectly. There's a significant difference between that and say, calling a group of people by a derrogatory term.

Lightknight:
Isn't the purpose of a boycott generally to change something? What is the goal of this boycott? What are we hoping to get out of it? Is it to prevent people from publically stating their opinions if they do not allign with ours? Is he actively oppressing a people? Sounds like he just made a political statement that people don't agree with. Oh noes.

A boycott is just a form of protest, and people are boycotting because they don't like OSC, and they don't want him involved in their entertainment, and they don't want him getting any money, so that's probably what they'd like to change. No one is censoring him, they're just using their freedom of speech to criticize the things he said and express their desire for products made by someone else. Apparently that's censorship, though, since people keep acting like OSC is entitled to everyone seeing his movie and anyone refusing to go is in the wrong.

Again, the problem lies with the government calling the damn thing a marriage license. That makes people think they're defending their religion.

The problem lies with idiots who think marriage is a religious institution, because they're factually wrong.

Its unfortunate that some think along these weird church hive ways. As much as I have enjoyed Cards works, he need to be careful what he says. You shouldn't stand in the way of the happiness of otheres just because an ancient book hints/says so.

If the Morman church doesn't want to promote love and understanding its their loss.

I will still go to see Enders Game, though. It should be cool and I'm all about supporting young actors earning their spurs and good sci fi.

 Pages PREV 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