31–40 of 121 posts
"No book, however good, can survive a hostile reading." Is that really true? The first Orwell book I read ( Homage to Catalonia ) was required for a history class -- a class that had previously assigned some truly awful literature. So I was pessimistic and I read it grudgingly at first. But halfway through the book, I realized I loved it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is he actually a terrible person, or merely one who happens to have unpopular opinions?
In my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to judge a person by their publicly stated opinions.
Similarly with Card, I am a reader of his fiction and so I don't care what color socks he wears, how often he showers, or whether he has a framed picture of Ronald McDonald on his wall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't we make distinctions between the guy's philosophy and his writing? I for one do not feel the book (or any book) is diminished by my perception of the author as a person.
Personally, I can't: The book may not be diminished by itself, but my enjoyment of it certainly is, because I keep searching for evidence of the author's personal beliefs and/or agenda in the text, disrupting immersion. We're talking about someone who writes stuff like this: "The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably ir…
The difference between my outlook and Card's is in how we define "acceptable." I say, homosexuality is not harmful, so it should be allowed. Card uses a different measuring stick for his morality. That's all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my humble opinion, it is not unreasonable to judge a person by their publicly stated opinions.
Sure it's reasonable. But do I judge Steve Jobs by what toppings he likes on his pizza or what kind of rap he listens to? No. I may agree or disagree with him, but his opinions on those matters have no bearing whatsoever on my primary relationship with him, which is as a purchaser of the hardware and software he designs. Similarly with Card, I am a reader of his fiction and so I don't care what color socks he wears,…
I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card
Can't we make distinctions between the guy's philosophy and his writing? I for one do not feel the book (or any book) is diminished by my perception of the author as a person.
That doesn't mean an author can't experiment with their beliefs, though, and that is where it gets very subjective: do I feel like I'm being lied to or not?
I don't generally spend a lot of time learning about authors I read, though. They tend to exist in a similar space as their characters do in my mind: a place stitched together and colored by the words they have written.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But where do you draw the line between "Opinions with which I disagree" and "Opinions which make you a bad person if you hold them"? I tend to classify really silly opinions as "loopy" rather than "evil", as long as they don't actually advocate violence or similar. OSC has loopy opinions, not immoral ones.
Hateful and discriminatory seems like a decent line to me, but hey, its a judgement call. Decide for yourself.
I love Ender's Game and all of OSC's other books, but it seems like he might be a terrible guy... more on that in this very interesting interview: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/02/03/card
The author misunderstands what Card is trying to say in response to her questions. Also, she evidently misunderstood Ender's Game quite a bit as well. Ender was suited to be a brilliant military commander precisely because he hated killing so much. A more bloodthirsty commander would have fallen for certain traps, committed certain errors of judgment that Ender was immune to. The nuance here is that Ender's strategic…
From "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality" by Orson Scott Card:
"Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message to those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
So the man actively opposes it gay marriage. He supports laws that make homosexual acts illegal. He doesn't think that gays should be protected from getting fired because of their sexuality. How is that not homophobic?
I'll just point out that the thing I didn't like about enders game was that the book felt too monotone. It has a great twist at the end, but everything leading up to it is linear, predictable, and while initially exciting, quickly becomes uninteresting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally, I can't: The book may not be diminished by itself, but my enjoyment of it certainly is, because I keep searching for evidence of the author's personal beliefs and/or agenda in the text, disrupting immersion. We're talking about someone who writes stuff like this: "The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably ir…
I find it interesting that the first passage offends you so much. I support gay rights and would really like to see gender taken out of the law altogether, but Card's philosophy there seems unarguably true. People have lots of natural impulses that society expects them to control, so whether homosexuality is natural or not doesn't matter . Homosexuality would be no less acceptable in my eyes if it were a choice. The…
He does not cite any scientific knowledge to support this position, but he does take the time to point out that science can't prove him wrong yet (via a, quote, "science has barely scratched the surface" statement).
Of course he's also not giving any explanation for exactly why homosexuality is supposed to be sinful in the first place.
That entire angle is tired, old, trite, familiar. It's also stopping short of thinking things through fully, in the service of his personal agenda: If science has only scratched the surface so far, then it follows that what he takes for granted in his own text has to be called into question as well. Yet there is no uncertainty about his position in his text; he is very sure of himself.
And that's the part that really makes me wonder. This guy seems too intelligent to buy into half-assed argumentation of this kind - so what makes him write it?
Admittedly this does run the danger of opening up the pandora's box of the entire religion topic. I just can't for the life of me understand how someone rationally thinking could be satisfied with non-explanations like "To act otherwise is to give more respect to the opinions of men than to the judgments of God." (also from the text).
Beyond that I agree with your post, i.e. the genetic question not actually being relevant to me when it comes to whether homosexuality is acceptable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "let's make all the characters naive children who eventually realize all the adults are manipulative". I can't agree. Speaker for the Dead (and sequels) characters have a lot of complexity in their arcs – perhaps because they're mostly not children. I'd say the Speaker series is a perfect example of how to create characters with nuance, depth and multiple motivations.
Check out 'A Memory of Earth'. (Or better yet, don't. It, enders game, and enders shadow all did it. Three strikes and you're out imho, certainly when one of them is the book the author is known for)
And two of those books are the same story told from the perspective of different characters. And although that is part of the plot of those books, I don't see how you can say that's all there is to those characters. The pivotal moments in Ender's life are his acts of violence, not the adults' manipulation.
And the other isn't really about naive children realizing adults are manipulative, either — the characters just happen to be young. Volemak (the main adult in the story) actually is a good man, and the children who oppose him are the antagonists.
Seriously, I have a laundry list of complaints about Card's writing (the Homecoming series in particular), but your complaints seem pretty shallow and sound like you're levying heavy criticism without ever giving them a chance.