I've Decided To Give Orson Scott Card The Benefit of the Doubt!

Geekery, Politics & Current Events

I'm strongly considering giving Orson Scott Card the benefit of the doubt and assuming that he doesn't want me to be killed, and therefore I might go see Ender's Game, the movie they've made out of one of his books.

Now, I'm not certain that Orson Scott Card doesn't want me killed.1 I mean, after all, I think same-sex American couples should be able to get married. I've voted and advocated for that position when I've had the opportunity. I strongly supported the decriminalization of "sodomy,"2 and generally oppose the use of government power to enforce personal and religious opposition to homosexuality. Orson Scott Card thinks that any government that agrees with me and fails to prevent gay marriage should be overthrown by any means "possible or necessary":

Because 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.

. . .

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.

Orson Scott Card has also called for private sexual contact between consenting adults to remain criminalized, though to be fair as far as I know he has not specifically advocated violent overthrow of any government that fails to imprison sexually active gays. Nuance alert!

Card has called, in short, for the government to be the tool of his personal religious preferences, and for it to be overthrown by (implicitly) force if it fails to satisfy those preferences. In addition to being an opponent of criminalization of sodomy and a supporter of gay marriage I am a vocal opponent of the use of government to promote individual religious dogma, which further puts me at odds with Mr. Card.

Now, Mr. Card only speaks of bringing down by any means necessary the government if it fails to ban gay marriage to satisfy his religious views. He doesn't specifically threaten supporters and fellow-travelers and thus and such. However, violent revolutions often result in violence towards those who have supported the ancien régime. Mr. Card rails against the term "homophobia," against decreasing acceptance of his views, and against social mores with which he disagrees; it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that he will consider me, a promoter of that which he hates and a supporter of government policies he views as destructive of his family, to be bloodworthy.

But I've decided to give Orson Scott Card the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't want me dead!

I was moved to this assumption by his moving plea for tolerance in the wake of calls for a boycott of his movie:

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.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

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.

Orson Scott Card

Here Orson Scott Card has shamed me.

First he's shamed me by correcting my ignorant and mistaken impression that the equality and humanity of gays was a political issue prior to 1984. Next he shamed my meager grasp of the law, which had led me to believe that the impact of the Windsor decision striking down DOMA on states that currently ban gay marriage is unsettled and will likely require years of litigation to sort out. I'm sure that when gay couples married in, say, California seek legal recognition in his state of North Carolina, Mr. Card will file an amicus brief asserting that the matter is now settled and that North Carolina must recognize the marriage. I believe in Orson Scott Card's consistency and good faith!

Most of all Card has shamed me in my grievous misunderstanding of tolerance. I had assumed that tolerance meant that it was a good thing for a free people to let consenting adults engage in private sexual conduct without government interference, or allowing loving consenting adult couples to marry even if some religious traditions oppose it. I assumed that tolerance meant that unpopular views — at one time the view that homosexuals should not be jailed, and now the view that they should be — ought to be addressed by the marketplace of ideas rather than by government force. But I was wrong! Tolerance means that people must be able to revile gays and gay marriage without any social consequence. Tolerance means that I should go see a movie by someone who makes me want to vomit — who wants to overthrow the government by force for doing something I agree with, who might or might not think I deserve to die so that his social policies can trump mine — because botcotting his works would be oppressive to him. Tolerance means that if he calls me a barbarian, and suggests that my friends have dark desires to seduce his children into homosexuality through the machinery of the state, then I should smile and go see his movie, because otherwise his speech might be chilled and he won't be as free to call me a barbarian and my friends child-craving tyrants.

I've already learned so much from Orson Scott Card just from this brief plea. Imagine how much I can learn from a whole movie based on his book! I just can't wait. I thought that I held Card in contempt and that I would express that contempt like a civilized man, by eschewing his society, directly or indirectly, in an exercise of my freedom of expression and association responding to his. But it all right, everything was all right, my struggle is finished. Mr. Card has helped me win a victory over my intolerant self.

  1. I'm not suggesting that Orson Scott Card ever wanted to kill me himself. He's an important author and political thinker and probably has people for that sort of thing.  
  2. I use scare quotes because in criminal statutes the term has often been used to criminalize oral or anal stimulation of anyone by anyone, and not just male anal intercourse. A rather large percentage of sexually active Americans would be criminals under that definition.  

Last 5 posts by Ken White

206 Comments

203 Comments

  1. Zac Morris  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:04 pm

    Ahhhhhh, I see what you did there! All bait and switch-y like!

  2. Damon  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:16 pm

    I approve of your calm voice of reason in assuming he probably doesn't want to kill you. Sadly, being gay and knowing what the Old Testament says, I assume he probably does want to kill me, but it's good to imagine he's not so extreme as to want to kill straight people too.

    I must also admire Mr. Card for his calm plea for tolerance.

  3. JohnB  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:17 pm

    What amazes me, as someone who has a few friends and acquaintances who hold Card's views, is how these people go on and on about the "enemy of marriage" when the biggest enemy of marriage and families is their own divorce rates.

  4. Ken White  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:19 pm

    @Damon: Look, the point is that he probably doesn't want to kill ALL of us in the revolution. See? Tolerance.

    @JohnB: To be fair to Card, he explicitly states that permissiveness and divorce are more of a threat than teh gayz.

  5. RogerX  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:19 pm

    I am still perplexed that the author of this incredible book from my youth is such a paternalistic right-wing douchebag IRL.

  6. hggdh  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:24 pm

    "Biological imperatives trump laws."

    The specific imperative OSC is referring to is about reproduction, not marriage. I am pretty certain, though, that he will be quite unhappy if someone points out that reproduction does not need marriage to happen.

  7. Al I.  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:41 pm

    Wow, I'm glad OSC was willing and able to take a moment and explain to all of us stupid people that the point is now moot. I guess we can all go home, then. War's over, everyone!

  8. Ryan  •  Jul 9, 2013 @3:48 pm

    Ender's Game was on my list of books to eventually get around to reading… right up until I read this blog post.

    Suffice it to say Mr. Card will never see a single penny of my money.

  9. Irk  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:01 pm

    Someone needs to tell Indiana that it's a moot point for them to criminalize same-sex marriage licenses. Thanks OSC!

    @Ryan You can always buy it from a used bookstore. For the movie, I guess there's always waiting for cable.

    Personally, I can't read/watch anything by a bigot without the bigotry somehow tainting the work for me. Inevitably I will end up thinking about it, and I'll consume the media critically instead of for leisure. Just can't be stopped.

    But there's always other books in the world.

  10. Kevin  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:04 pm

    @Ryan – You shouldn't let OSC's views stop you from reading the book.

    Just paying for it.

    Link to pirate site deleted — Ken

  11. Wondering  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:10 pm

    Well done, Ken.

    I assume libraries still loan DVDs in addition to books. If I do decide I want to see the movie, that's probably the route I'll go. But like Irk, I'm not sure I can bring myself to watch the movie at this point.

  12. Oesten  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:18 pm

    I loved each and every book from Ender's Game to Xenocide and Shadow Puppets. I was excited that Ender's Game was being turned into a movie, and it is very bittersweet to just now see that he started publishing again in 2008 and I have a LOT of catching up to do – because I'm not sure I want to indirectly support the horrible views he espoused in the Deseret News.

    I find his EW statement very curious. Has he really thrown in the towel on arguing about this? Or is this just a pause to make him more commercially palatable? I'd like to see him go further than what he said to EW; to say something to the effect of (at the least), "I still believe that this isn't right, but I'm not going to advocate punishment or disdain of homosexuals and argue for the overthrow of governments that recognize marriages between two men or two women".

    I'm tolerant of what he said in that I'm not going to start hating him, or refuse to help him if I came across him in need, or a similar degree; he's a product of his environment, and a human entitled to mistakes as we all are. But if he is actively furthering views that I strongly disagree with, I will not give him one more box office ticket or one more book sold that he can use as a platform to further these views. That's not intolerance; that's free choice.

  13. Matthew Cline  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:19 pm

    To be fair to Card, he explicitly states that permissiveness and divorce are more of a threat than teh gayz.

    But back before the gay rights issues, he wasn't advocating the overthrow of the government because it allowed divorced and had decriminalized straight sex between consenting adults. So I'm not buying it.

  14. TerryTowels  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:20 pm

    Damn, I was looking forward to the movie. Oh well.

    This is not a troll, but a question I've had for years: It seems to me that the whole anti-abortion kerfuffle is exactly the same as the anti-gay argument. That is, it's all about religion and not about individual rights to go about their own business. How am I getting this wrong?

  15. Matthew Cline  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:22 pm

    and had decriminalized straight sex between consenting adults

    Oops, I meant "and had decriminalized extramarital straight sex between consenting adults"

  16. Oesten  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:24 pm

    Oh, and an apology for the advocating of punishment and overthrow, too. I would need that before I'd pay any more money for any of his works.

    I should probably just brace myself for not seeing the movie…

  17. Xenocles  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:28 pm

    @TerryTowels-

    The abortion issue is not necessarily about religion. Your religion might influence your stance on it (mine does not). I consider it to be a question of who is to be afforded individual rights and who is not. Actually, my only real question is whether a fetus at some or all stages of development is to be afforded rights. As far as I can tell your position on the legality of abortions should follow directly from your answer.

  18. Oesten  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:39 pm

    @TerryTowels, these arguments are primarily a result of how religious views/interpretation influence people's conception of universal right and wrong, which therefore should be codified into law. From their religious background, they can start selectively parsing other "facts" to fit their reasoning. To some, abortion and homosexuality are clearly as wrong as murder, and to protect society they must be outlawed.

    Other Jews/Christians/Muslims believe that our holy books were inspired by God but written by flawed human beings who were influenced by their socio-historical context, or that we don't have the right to enforce our interpretation on other people if it's not universally accepted (like murder=bad).

    To say that it's about religion is a gross oversimplification – those of us within the same religion can have very different takes on this.

  19. jimmythefly  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:43 pm

    @ TerryTowels

    Gay rights involves what consenting adults do with each other.

    Abortion (to anti-abortionists) involves killing a child. It involves only one consenting adult, along with one non-consenting minor.

    That's the difference, and it's a huge one. If you view a fertilized egg or fetus as a person, then the wrongness of killing that person can be based on any number of moral grounds, not just religious.

  20. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:44 pm

    Mr. Card seems to be arguing that, now that the question is decided, there should be no reason to protest people on one side of it.

    But as far as I can tell, he's still on the board of the National Organization for Marriage, and they are still arguing that the fight is very far from over, and are campaigning for people to support a Constitutional amendment (and, ahem, send them money.)

    And during his days on the board, he was helping make decisions when NOM decided to campaign to get three Supreme Court justices kicked off the bench in Iowa because they had disagreed with NOM… and this was, of course, after the decision was over. And to this day they are running a campaign to boycott General Mills for the company's opposition to an amendment in Minnesota… an Amendment which failed at the ballot box over half a year ago, and is thus a settled issue.

    So either Card has little control in an organization whose methods he is severely at odds with… or he's making an exception to his beliefs for his little ol' self.

  21. TerryTowels  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:49 pm

    To the previous posters, thank you for your response.

    But I get that "some people think (for whatever reason, mainly religious)" means that other people DON'T think that way.

    So, we come down to: shouldn't the individual woman have the right to decide which is the right choice for her? That the law should remain secular, and the living individual make the choice, and not the State?

  22. Moriah Jovan  •  Jul 9, 2013 @4:56 pm

    @Roger X

    right-wing

    Card's a self-proclaimed socialist "communalist" and rabid anticapitalist. Last time I checked, that wasn't an approved right-wing tenet.

    Sadly, not only does he want to regulate people's behavior, he wants to take what they've earned, too. His cognitive dissonance, particularly juxtaposed with the Mormon philosophy of free agency (ask me how I know), is breathtaking.

  23. AlanMorgan  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:09 pm

    I strongly suspect the movie will suck, so I think I maintain the moral high-ground and not see it while simultaneously not missing out on anything.

  24. Grifter  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:13 pm

    The people I know who've defended Card because he didn't say he'd overthrow the government, he just "asked when it would happen" got confused looks on their faces when I asked them "Yes, but will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"

  25. Shelby  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:16 pm

    If I avoided every movie tied to a writer/director/actor with appalling political views (that are irrelevant to the movie), I would never see any movies. There's something for that approach, but I plan to go on ignoring the views ignoramuses express elsewhere, so long as they make decent art.

  26. Grifter  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:20 pm

    @Shelby:

    There's no view whatsoever they could take? You'd be buying Hitler's paintings if they were better? (1, he was mediocre, 2, I'm not equating OSC w/ AH, I'm just probing the limits of this "doesn't matter for their art" concept)

  27. Lizard  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:23 pm

    After reading Assad's comment that Morsi ought to just step down when the people wanted him to go, I finally realized that after replacing my irony meter five times in the past few weeks, that I'd never find one which could survive the modern world. Thanks to this post, Ken, I have also had to toss away my sarcasm detector, as you blew it to bits. You'll be hearing from my lawyer. Conduct yourself accordingly.

  28. beingmarkh  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:37 pm

    It's unfortunate that with logic like this, it's a win-win for Card.

    The Ender of the film is *way* too old, and based on the previews it's almost certainly going to be another special effects extravaganza that will inevitably sacrifice the psychological and political components of the story and end up looking like Starship Troopers minus the irony.

    In short, I'm not going to see this film because it is very definitely going to suck. If others do the same, Card will blame it

  29. beingmarkh  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:38 pm

    It's unfortunate that with logic like this, it's a win-win for Card.

    The Ender of the film is *way* too old, and based on the previews it's almost certainly going to be another special effects extravaganza that will inevitably sacrifice the psychological and political components of the story and end up looking like Starship Troopers minus the irony.

    In short, I'm not going to see this film because it is very definitely going to suck. If others do the same, Card will blame it on intolerant homophilia.

    If they don't, he'll make a pile of money

  30. Damon  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:44 pm

    To those who don't want to pay for the book, you can go to an institution that will allow you to pirate the book in an obsolete dead-tree format for a period of time, all without giving Card an additional cent.

    (Certain more rigid libertarians might not be willing to visit their public library, however.)

  31. beingmarkh  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:49 pm

    Why not to comment from an iPad 101…

    Thank you ladies and gents, remember to tip your waitresses…

  32. Dictatortot  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:51 pm

    I've never been much of a sci-fi fan, but feel the urge to drop a few bucks on at least some of OSC's stuff. I think he's taken several of his arguments and driven them right off the cliff, but as someone once said when asked why he still liked Nixon: "All the right people hate him–no one with those enemies can be all that bad!"

  33. different Jess  •  Jul 9, 2013 @5:57 pm

    It seems I'm less surprised than most that a Sci-Fi/Fantasy writer would hold fringe political and moral opinions. I've read a great deal of the genre, and I'd be shocked to find that a significant portion of its successful authors aren't a bit odd. I suspect Heinlein would come in for some of this postmodern criticism-via-boycott if he were still alive. I doubt it would bother him as much as it seems to have bothered Card, but then again he never got to write on his "own" movie. OSC has written some trippy stuff (as well as some nauseatingly banal stuff) and any reader who hasn't skipped the Author's Notes has long known him to be inspired by a fairly trippy flavor of that good old American-made polygamy cult. He still fits on my bookshelf right next to Le Guin and Miéville. I haven't been to the movies in years, but I expect I'll drop my $12 on this one.

  34. Noah Callaway  •  Jul 9, 2013 @6:12 pm

    @TerryTowels

    "So, we come down to: shouldn't the individual woman have the right to decide which is the right choice for her? That the law should remain secular, and the living individual make the choice, and not the State?"

    The answer to your first question entirely depends on when you consider the fetus to be developed enough to be a person that should be protected by law.

    It's pretty inarguable that a just newborn child can't be killed by the mother's whim. Further, a fetus moments prior to being born is developmentally no different from the newborn. The only thing that's changed between the newborn and the fully developed fetus is its environment. It seems reasonable that the fully developed fetus is just as entitled to rights as the newborn. By this logic (I'm an atheist and generally pro-choice person) it's entirely reasonable to say that a mother can't have a child aborted if the fetus is fully developed.

    As a society we agree that at some point earlier in development – let's say moment's after conception – the mother has the right to terminate the pregnancy. This means we, as a secular society, have to draw a line in the sand where we say the baby has developed enough to be protected from an abortion. There is no clean answer to this question, and there's a lot of room for reasonable debate about at which point the mother no longer has the right to chose for the baby.

  35. Noah Callaway  •  Jul 9, 2013 @6:14 pm

    "moment's" -> "moments" and I hang my head in eternal shame. Is there like…a dunce cap that I can borrow and wear for a while?

  36. Jayn Newell  •  Jul 9, 2013 @6:28 pm

    Dammit, and here I was trying to give him a little credit after reading Shadow of the Hegemon. But this just reinforces the things that bugged me about that book.

  37. Bill  •  Jul 9, 2013 @6:33 pm

    100 years in the future, I'm sure brain imaging and other technology will prove that gay people don't decide to be gay. I can no more choose to be gay than any gay guy can choose to be attracted to women. No gay guy has ever condemned my love of women, told me I couldn't/shouldn't marry my wife etc and I'm fine showing them the same courtesy. I haven't read Ender's game or any of Card's stuff, but I've heard its good – usually from people that annoy me (with the one notable exception of Glenn Reynolds – he's a Card fan and he's still cool). I wasn't eally on the fence about reading his stuff, but this will keep me in my yard far away from the fence.

  38. Jon  •  Jul 9, 2013 @6:39 pm

    I think the empathy that Orson Scott Card portrayed as a central roll in his books have been completely lost on himself. The sad irony.

    Orson Scott Card seems at a loss for what roll the government should play in society. Perhaps similar to this post (http://www.powerfulignorance.com/love-and-marriagelove-and-marriage/).

    Orson Scott Card may, or may not, advocate the death of anyone who respects freedom not just you Ken. Why does Orson Scott Card hate freedom?

  39. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:07 pm

    Surely by "change government by any means necessary", he means emigration?

  40. JD  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:09 pm

    For those who refuse to read (or see) Ender's Game, Will Wildman has been writing a chapter-by-chapter deconstruction. It is devastating and hilarious:

    Enders Game Deconstruction

    (It is also in reverse order, so you have to scroll to "Older Posts" to go to the beginning. And spoilers abound.)

  41. Wayne Borean  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:09 pm

    Orson Scott Card is dead wrong, and he's just proved that he doesn't know his Triple (book containing the Mormon Standard Works) as well as he should. The Thirteen Articles of Faith set out major points in our religion. They were written by Joseph Smith two years before his death. From LDS.ORG

    Two years before he died, the Prophet Joseph Smith wrote them in a letter to a newspaper editor, John Wentworth, who had asked for information about the Church.

    The Articles of Faith read:

    1) We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

    2) We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

    3) We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

    4) We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

    5) We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

    6) We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

    7) We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

    8) We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

    9) We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

    10) We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

    11) We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    12) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

    13) We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul-We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

    The important one is Number Eleven.

    11) We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    There are twelve or fifteen churches which solemnize (conduct religious weddings) for Lesbians and Gays. Since we allow all men the privilege of worshipping God (this has been interpreted to mean Goddess, or Gods plural) in their own way. Since part of their worship is celebrating Same-Sex marriages, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THEM IN THIS.

    Now Orson should know this. He probably does, but the article you've posted is from July 24, 2008 and it is quite possible he was not aware of how many churches in countries like Canada, where Same-Sex marriage is legal, celebrate it.

    I was, but I live in Canada, which was the first country where Same-Sex marriage was legalized. We've had ten years to get used to the idea, and while there are dinosaurs who think it was a mistake, the vast majority of Canadians don't care what sexes you are, what they care about is how nice you are.

    And since the Greatest Country in the World has had a positive experience with Same-Sex marriage, you'd think that the United States will have a positive experience too.

    Wayne

  42. Xenocles  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:10 pm

    @Terry-

    There are many possible secular arguments to support the idea that the decision is not wholly the woman's. The one that is strongest in my judgement is that at some point during pregnancy an abortion would destroy a functioning brain, which I can't help but see as identical with killing a person. If it is wrong to kill a person without a compelling reason, we must then judge the reason that the woman presents.

    I'm not convinced that anti-homosexual are necessarily religious, either. I could construct an argument saying that homosexuality ought to be discouraged because it's better for society to have heterosexual couples, for instance. It's not an argument I'd adopt, but it would be minimally coherent and secular. I'd offer as evidence the fact that many communist regimes, which were at least nominally secular, were virulently homophobic.

    Lots of laws have religious justifications alongside solid secular ones. We would not permit murder because a survey showed that an overwhelming majority of people cited the Ten Commandments to support prohibiting murder.

  43. Shelby  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:12 pm

    @Grifter: No, I'd buy Hitler-art as an investment, and I'm pretty cold-blooded on that front. But I'm sure there's some good art I'd boycott due to the creator's unrelated monstrous views.

    @Lizard: In these parts, that's "GOVERN yourself accordingly."

    @different Jess: [Heinlein] never got to write on his "own" movie
    He wrote the novel and screenplay for "Destination Moon" and the screenplay for "Project Moon Base." And I maintain that the "Starship Troopers" movies/mini-series are not his fault.
    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0374423/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

  44. Xenocles  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:18 pm

    I've seen you write on this before, Ken, and as I recall you observed your own inconsistency in not supporting artists because of their extra-artistic views (it may have been one of your co-bloggers). I'd just say that I am very opposed to Card's writings on this subject, but in my experience with his art I haven't seen much of anything hinting at this sort of rabid hatred. On the contrary, I find his themes to be largely encouraging of thoughtful treatment of all people, and of expanding the sphere of what we should call people. So I suppose I'd see watching the movie as supporting the art and its themes as opposed to his op-eds. I mean, if he slipped the sort of talk you get in his columns into his novels and screenplays that would be different. But as it is, do you ask the plumber for his opinions before you hire him? I suppose it might be somewhat different if he was known for lots of atrocious letters to the editor, but I'm not so sure.

    So I guess I'd say that I think I'm able to distinguish between artists' activities and that supporting some of their works is not necessarily supporting all of them, despite the fungible nature of money.

  45. Blaise Pascal  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:22 pm

    @Bill: 100 years in the future, I'd hope it wouldn't matter if gay people decide to be gay or not.

  46. InnocentBystander  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:24 pm

    Orson Scott card is a direct descendant of Brigham Young, so his views on marriage may have been colored by his family history of polygamy. Having 56 great-grandmothers is something that might cement a parochial attitude about marriage in anybody.

  47. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:28 pm

    "Actually, my only real question is whether a fetus at some or all stages of development is to be afforded rights. As far as I can tell your position on the legality of abortions should follow directly from your answer."

    Really? Because pretty much nobody questions whether or not a fetus has rights (it does). The question is whether those rights are primary to the rights of the mother, or secondary.

    Here's a common-law argument: An unwanted fetus, by definition, batters the mother. Use of force to stop a battery is authorized by common-law. Therefore, abortion is a simple case of self-defense. Yes, it IS unfortunate that the fetus dies as a result but that is due to the nature of fetus-hood; if you can survive in only one habitat and that habitat is unavailable to you, you're going to die. (Just as you would if the mother perishes before term, or if, instead of attaching to a uterus, the fetus attached to a Fallopian tube.)
    Now, as science and medicine get better and better at helping extremely premature infants survive, the point of viability becomes earlier and earlier, moving the point further forward where the infant's right to survive may be protected by the state… because the fetus can be made to STOP battering the mother, this removes the authorization to use force against it.

  48. jdgalt  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:43 pm

    This is not a hard choice for me. I've read several of Card's books, including Ender's Game, and didn't like them enough that I'd see the movie even if he hadn't opened his mouth about gays.

    I believe people like Card should be allowed to discriminate against whomever they don't like. This is partly because I have faith in the marketplace: more people are going to discriminate against Card and his allies than in favor of them. Eventually, he'll either raise the white flag or wind up broke and alone. Maybe his God will tell him he's an idiot.

  49. TerryTowels  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:43 pm

    @Noah Callaway • Jul 9, 2013 @6:12 pm and @Xenocles • Jul 9, 2013 @7:10 pm

    Thank you for your responses. But, it is a dilemma. And, once again, a dilemma best resolved by the individual involved in the pregnancy.

    You've stated your and other's opinions about the situation. Shouldn't the relevant party have their say in the matter based on their individual opinion and medical status?

    I've always thought that a fetus was a parasite on a woman until it could be born and survive on it's own without medical intervention.

    I've also always thought that a woman should decide when and where she could carry a fetus to full term. It's not my place to judge her and her circumstances.

    That's my opinion, which I've found is shocking to others.

    I note that Michelle Duggar has stated something close to what Card has said:

    "If those who are voted in do not support life, then they need to be replaces by those who do,” she said, the San Antonio Express reported.

    Arghhh *sadly shakes head*

  50. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:47 pm

    " many communist regimes, which were at least nominally secular, were virulently homophobic"
    So were "Godwin's fascists". I think the question of religious belief and anti-homosexuality is chicken-and-egg… what portion of the religious anti-homisexuality advocates are religious people following the teachings of their religion, versus the number of anti-homosexuals who find support for their distaste in their religion? I think both feed each other.
    Given that there seem to be plenty of people of religious faith who find no objection to homosexuality, I don't think they're inherently linked… it's just that religious people involve their religion into every aspect of their daily lives.

  51. Xenocles  •  Jul 9, 2013 @7:54 pm

    @Terry-

    That's a bit like saying that it's up to a man whether or not he beats his kids. If in his opinion the kids are property in need of correction, after all, who are we to object with our opinions? Simply put, you cannot claim unlimited freedom to hurt another person. The only question is what makes a person.

    I don't really want to derail this page on abortion, so I'll stop this thread. Sorry, Ken.

  52. anne mouse  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:03 pm

    I haven't been paying any attention to Card in years. Maybe he's changing his views as he ages, but I remember a writer who was quite good at understanding both (or multiple) sides of an argument, not unlike Clark's "ideological Turing test" post some weeks ago on this site. The one that stands out in my mind is a short story from "Lost Boys" in which a character makes a very convincing case that religion (specifically, Mormonism) is indistinguishible from schizophrenia. I'm sure Card intended that character to be seen as a (misguided, not evil) villain, but he sure got the argument right. My point is merely that his views on gay marriage, as described by Ken, seem out of character, and furthermore that commenters here assuming that Card is some simple-minded religious buffoon are likely to be surprised when they read his fiction.
    I'm in no hurry to see the movie, just because I doubt it will do the book justice.

    PS
    "Like starship troopers minus the irony". I guess I'm too old for this irony stuff, I just thought it was a horrible movie. Maybe there was something lost in translation from the book. You'd be hard-pressed to transalte Stranger in a Strange Land to film, for sure, though some of Heinlein's other work is so unsubtle that Michael Bay could film it.

  53. Moriah Jovan  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:08 pm

    My point is merely that his views on gay marriage, as described by Ken, seem out of character,

    They're not. He's been very consistent through the years.

    and furthermore that commenters here assuming that Card is some simple-minded religious buffoon are likely to be surprised when they read his fiction.

    Dickens was an ass, yet he wrote some of the most poignant moments of humanity in literary history. What Card has is some measure of talent to be able to write good fiction dissociated from himself and his views when he wants to.

  54. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:11 pm

    ""Like starship troopers minus the irony". I guess I'm too old for this irony stuff, I just thought it was a horrible movie."
    I didn't think it was a horrible movie. It's not the same as the book, but Hollywood has never been able to follow a SF book. Starship Troopers is considerably closer to the original than, say, "The Last Mimzy" ("All Mimzy Were the Borogoves" is one of the best SF stories, ever.) And the less said about the Dune movie, the better.
    I loved "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and "Little Fuzzy"… but I shudder to think of what Hollywood would do to them.

  55. anne mouse  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:11 pm

    James P,
    I am honestly impressed that you're back and swinging after serving as the designated whipping boy in that other thread.
    But before you make an argument "by definition", you might want to make sure you understand terms of art like "battery." In no jurisdiction would a fetus be considered to have the mental capacity, let alone the mens rea, to commit battery.

  56. Kevin  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:15 pm

    I get that "some people think (for whatever reason, mainly religious)" means that other people DON'T think that way.

    So, we come down to: shouldn't the individual woman have the right to decide which is the right choice for her? That the law should remain secular

    You SAY you get it, but then you continue to phrase things based on the assumption that any objections to abortion are inherently non-secular. Although I'm ultimately pro-choice on libertarian grounds, I certainly have some moral objections to abortion… and I'm an atheist. I assure you my objections have nothing whatsoever to do with God.

  57. Noah Callaway  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:34 pm

    @TerryTowels

    I'm sure we could continue this debate for a while. As Xenocles has done, I'm going to avoid carrying it on, as it's not really the main thrust of the post / thread. Let's leave our discussion at we agree on 95% of this issue. If you're interested in continuing the discussion, feel free to send me a direct message on twitter (@ncallaway) and I'll happily carry on.

  58. Al I.  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:36 pm

    I've read his fiction. Almost all of it. I respected much of it. Still, he later made it clear that he is a simple-minded religious buffoon. These two things are not incompatible. The latter means I will never spend another dime on the former.

  59. Al I.  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:37 pm

    Kevin, someday I hope you will understand some day that pro-choice does not mean the same thing as pro-abortion.

  60. Kevin  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:43 pm

    @Al I. : Huh? I absolutely do understand that, which is why, as I said, I'm pro-choice.

  61. beingmarkh  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:43 pm

    @ anne mouse & James Pollock:

    I loved Heinlein's book, but perhaps I went into Starship Troopers expecting it to be something…else. This was, after all, done by the director of Robocop, so if you went into it expecting anything other than blood-drenched, explosive, overblown, in-your-face satire, you were doomed to disappointment.

    I'm not saying the movie was *good*, mind…only that if you appreciate it for what it was meant to be, if you can see its unidimensionality as flagrantly intentional, it makes it much more easier to enjoy.

  62. David  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:44 pm

    "In no jurisdiction would a fetus be considered to have the mental capacity, let alone the mens rea, to commit battery."

    Well, that doesn't matter so much in a self-defense case, does it? If a fat person is crushing you, it doesn't matter if that fat person is in a coma; you can do what it takes to get him off of you, including pushing him off a cliff, if that's your only option. It's still self-defense.

    Except, of course, that if you were the one who placed the comatose fat person on top of yourself, the courts would likely take a dim view of claiming self-defense when you then pushed him off that cliff to get him off of you…

  63. TerryTowels  •  Jul 9, 2013 @8:54 pm

    To all, thank you for your thoughtful words. I've found it informative.

    I apologize for not including the non-religious objections in the discussion more fully. I think we're not that far apart.

    I too am signing off…..but, I'm just trying to demonstrate that such a tangled, difficult, multi-opinioned decision should be kept out of the hands of the State and left to the individual.

    @David, thanks for the laugh.

  64. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @9:00 pm

    "you might want to make sure you understand terms of art like "battery."
    Um, OK. Would having passed a state bar exam be sufficient evidence of my understanding of terms of art? I mean, a third party with skill in exactly this area scored my exam, so it's not just my opinion.

    "In no jurisdiction would a fetus be considered to have the mental capacity, let alone the mens rea, to commit battery."
    Perhaps the better objection would be that the common-law may be altered by statute at the whim of the legislature. But then, that would be to take that particular piece of writing FAR too seriously.

  65. spinetingler  •  Jul 9, 2013 @9:04 pm

    About 15 seconds into the first Enders Game trailer I went "Fuck yeah! Enders Game!" followed 10 seconds later by "Oh crap, I now know too much about Card to want to go see this."

  66. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @9:05 pm

    "Except, of course, that if you were the one who placed the comatose fat person on top of yourself, the courts would likely take a dim view of claiming self-defense when you then pushed him off that cliff to get him off of you…"

    Nah. If you instigated contact, it means that you have a duty to retreat or to show that retreat was not possible before you can claim self-defense. If you can't move, you can't retreat. If you can't retreat, you can go forward to deadly force. (anne mouse, yes, I am fully aware that there is a glaring flaw in this argument… this one ALSO is advanced for satire.)

  67. John Finn  •  Jul 9, 2013 @9:14 pm

    AINAL

    @JamesPollock

    "An unwanted fetus, by definition, batters the mother." Assuming that the sex that was this fetus was consensual and between two competent adults, isn't it reasonable to assume that the fetus was accepted as a possible consequence of the sex?

    Additionally, you state " if you can survive in only one habitat and that habitat is unavailable to you, you're going to die" as a justification for ending the life of that fetus. However, if completely dependent person such as an mentally incompetent adult or an infant were to be placed in an environment were they were likely to be harmed or killed by their caretaker, wouldn't that caretaker be responsible for them?

  68. EAB  •  Jul 9, 2013 @10:20 pm

    @JamesPollock, most state self-defense/justifiable homicide statutes do specifically require criminal intent. For example, Mississippi 97-3-15(f) states that homicide is justifiable in the face of "a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury'". North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Texas statutes are all similarly constructed.

    I get that you're mainly attempting to argue the philosophical case, but the case for elective abortion as self-defense is generally thought to be pretty weak. It gets somewhat stronger when we start to talk about maternal life, but even there, it's far from clear-cut. Most pregnancy complications don't involve a 100% certainty of immediate death — by the time it's medically that clear, the mother is usually well into the process of dying, and it's too late to terminate. Would you be permitted to preemptively kill an innocent attacker if there's a 25% chance you will otherwise die in six weeks, and claim self-defense? That's a much dimmer prospect than Judith Jarvis Thomson's falling man.

    Abele v Markle explicitly rejected maternal life/self-defense as a justification for abortion if a fetus has 5th/14th Amendment Protection: "Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how a statute permitting abortion could be constitutional if the fetus had fourteenth amendment rights. Even one of the few decisions sustaining the constitutionality of a restrictive abortion statute casts no doubt on the propriety of a legislative judgment permitting abortion where there is substantial risk that the mother's health would be gravely impaired or where pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. Corkey v. Edwards, 322 F.Supp. 1248 (W.D.N.C.1971). We do not believe such circumstances could justify terminating the life of a person with fourteenth amendment rights." The Roe opinion reiterates this position in Footnote 54, that establishing a fetal right to life would trump the mother's right to self-defense to save her life.

    While I'm sure jury nullification or prosecutorial discretion would come into play in a real-world situation, I think you're on pretty thin ice asserting that the common law of self defense permits any abortion at all, especially an "elective" one done for considerations other than maternal health.

    (reposted w/o links to avoid mod queue)

  69. Stephen H  •  Jul 9, 2013 @10:30 pm

    I hadn't been aware of Mr Scott Card's views prior to this, but will have some spare bookshelf space now.

    I wonder how he feels about divorce, given it was long frowned upon by organised religion? Or marriage to pre-teens – as supported by his chosen faith?

  70. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @10:40 pm

    ""An unwanted fetus, by definition, batters the mother." Assuming that the sex that was this fetus was consensual and between two competent adults, isn't it reasonable to assume that the fetus was accepted as a possible consequence of the sex?"
    The father may or may not have battered the mother (in the tort sense, not the criminal sense) but the fetus is a different person. Even if the mother origininally consents to the touch, as soon as consent to touch is revoked, it becomes battery.
    Battery is an intentional tort; acceptance of the risk is only relevant in negligence.

    "However, if completely dependent person such as an mentally incompetent adult or an infant were to be placed in an environment were they were likely to be harmed or killed by their caretaker, wouldn't that caretaker be responsible for them?"
    I don't think you'll find a court where the caretaker is required to submit to battery, no. But you might have a good case for negligent hire of the caretaker. You should call a lawyer admitted to the bar of your jurisdiction to discover and possibly pursue your options.

  71. htom  •  Jul 9, 2013 @10:58 pm

    Couple of things, in no particular order.

    Ender's Game is one of the great stories of science fiction. I suspect it's one of the great stories of the world. The movie will be a disappointment, I'm sure. Hollywood rarely "gets" science fiction.

    The move of Starship Troopers started with a script entitled something like "Bug Hunt on Antares 9"; some of Heinlein's characters' names were grafted onto players there by someone who's never taken credit for it, and things went downhill because the director read only the first chapter or two of the book. About half-way through the film, I figured out the trick, and had a great time (cheer for the bugs!)

    OSC can be a talented writer. I don't know if he really believes some of the things he writes, or is stirring the pot trying to get people to think. Or get publicity.

    Someone up thread mentioned that at some point the fetus has a thinking brain. [citation required] Many seem to be born and are walking about without such.

    She was on the pill, used a diaphragm, he wore a condom. Fetus seems unlikely to be considered to be accepted as a possible consequence without considerable reconsidering. Hi, baby!

  72. cratict  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:17 pm

    Love the sin, hate the sinner?

  73. different Jess  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:23 pm

    Shelby, thanks for the correction. Whatever sums Heinlein earned on those movies, I suspect Card is hoping for more from this one and its potential sequels. That may be why he's a bit out of sorts.

  74. Jon  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:24 pm

    The thing I've never been able to figure out is how OSC, a lifelong devout Mormon, could have been responsible for one of the clearest, most sympathetic, and funniest (I literally had to pull to the side of the road the first time I heard it on the radio) explications of secular humanism I have ever heard: The Secular Humanist Revival Meeting

  75. John Finn  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:27 pm

    @James Pollock

    You seem to have missed the point of my (admittedly poorly phrased) argument, I was using the word "caretaker" instead of parent/guardian, the point being that your idea of 'remove the fetus and whatever happens to it isn't the responsibility of the mother.'

    "As soon as consent to touch is revoked, it becomes battery.
    Battery is an intentional tort; acceptance of the risk is only relevant in negligence."

    But clearly it isn't battery if the contact isn't intentional, and I think we can all agree that the fetus has no choice to be in contact with the mother.

  76. John Finn  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:29 pm

    - The point being that doesn't hold up for someone who is dependent on another.

  77. James Pollock  •  Jul 9, 2013 @11:56 pm

    "But clearly it isn't battery if the contact isn't intentional, and I think we can all agree that the fetus has no choice to be in contact with the mother."
    Make up your mind. Is it unintentional, or is it necessity? These are two extremely different legal theories.
    I don't think the unintentional argument is going to work against a person who has literally implanted him-or-herself within the body of another.
    And necessity is a legal defense. Nobody's suing the fetus… it's strictly self-help. (A person who is battered may use force to stop the battery, AND may sue to recover damages. The fetus is probably entitled to a necessity defense against a tort suit, but who'd bring it? A fetus is almost certainly judgment-proof.)

  78. En Passant  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:03 am

    Shelby wrote Jul 9, 2013 @5:16 pm:

    If I avoided every movie tied to a writer/director/actor with appalling political views (that are irrelevant to the movie), I would never see any movies. There's something for that approach, but I plan to go on ignoring the views ignoramuses express elsewhere, so long as they make decent art.

    I know little about Card, or SF generally. But the issue of whether an artist's work is to be avoided or deplored because of his political views, however horrific, is not a new one.

    Ezra Pound was very lucky that enough poets and critics fought for him not to be tried and executed for treason after WWII. While he was committed at St. Elizabeth's in the 1950s, a regular stream of young fascist and anti-semitic groupies who knew less of his poetics than his politics visited him "waiting for marching orders", as I heard the late Hugh Kenner, one of Pounds most incisive critics, state it.

    I deplore Pound's political views, especially antisemitism. I've heard recordings of broadcasts he made from Italy in WWII, ranting about "Jewspapers". But I consider his poetry among the greatest in the 20th century, as did Kenner, who deplored Pound's political and antisemitic views.

    Going back to the 19th century, should we deplore Wagner's music because of his deplorable politics? I can think of reasons to dislike his music, but his politics is not among them.

    More examples come to mind. T.S. Eliot was demonstrably antisemitic. For at taste, read his short poem "Burbank with a Baedeker: Bleistein with a Cigar". Do his views lessen the literary merit of his poetry?

    Jack London was an avowed socialist and believer in class struggle. For a taste of his less than egalitarian racial views, read "The Unparalleled Invasion". But do those personal prejudices make his novels and short stories less worthy literature?

    In fact, I think it is both possible and coherent to despise an artist's politics and prejudices yet admire his work. Likewise I think it is coherent to rhetorically attack, deconstruct, spindle, fold and mutilate the former while extolling the virtues of the latter.

  79. Dave B  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:18 am

    How much "creative control" does an author get if his work is made into a movie?
    If he sold or gave away the adaptation rights early, i guess not much.
    I am looking at the "Inspired by" motive some movies used.

    OSC will get book royalties from pre and post movie sales, but again it depends on his publishing agreeements if he only gets a miniscule amount or gets rich from it.

    Anyway the elements from the trailer looked somewhat close to the book so it seems they didn't give the screen write free reign to make the screenplay appeal more to the focus groups.

    Marriage is only one and the same for ever and ever? Aren't there lots of examples in the bible were it isn't and aren't some mormons big on polygamy which isn't exactly tradition marriage?

    Every "religious activist" who wants a government removed because it doesn't agree with his political/religious views wants in essence to install a theocracy. Where else should they get a new government which is agreeable.
    And then it is time to punish the "sinners"?

  80. malcom digest  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:21 am

    TerryTowels • Jul 9, 2013 @7:43 pm

    "I've always thought that a fetus was a parasite on a woman until it could be born and survive on it's own without medical intervention."

    I'm not sure that's the best basis for determining whether it's legitimate to kill something that could eventually be a healthy, fully functioning human being. Or even an unhealthy, marginally functioning human being.

    What about some drunk college kid passed out in my driveway blocking me in. At the moment they have some of the characteristics of a person such as a pulse and respiration but limited brain activity? If I put up with the inconvenience and aggravation of them being on my property, there's a pretty good chance they'll wake up and walk away and not be my problem. Or maybe they'll wake up and come to my door and ask to borrow my phone, that would be annoying. So is it o.k. to kill them? Does it change if it's my college child, who has been a great disappointment to me?

    James Pollock • Jul 9, 2013 @7:28 pm

    "Here's a common-law argument: An unwanted fetus, by definition, batters the mother. Use of force to stop a battery is authorized by common-law."

    Can I use deadly force on someone that I invite into my bedroom, chain them to my bed so that it is beyond their ability to leave and then I crawl between them and the bed? Cause that's a pretty cool loophole.

    If I were a prosecutor I'd make the case that the fetus has been kidnapped (or whatever it is when you invite someone into somewhere and create conditions such that they don't have the ability to leave.) That's facetiousness.

    On a serious note, I agree with you, technology is going to make abortion irrelevant. A woman who becomes pregnant and decides she doesn't want the baby will just go to her local medical clinic, pay a couple of hundred dollars and the fertilized egg/blastocyst/fetus will be removed and placed into an incubator. And then she'll get to split eighteen years of child support 50-50 with the father. Though I suspect there will be an awful lot of women's groups still arguing that "it's her body and her choice!"

  81. Rob  •  Jul 10, 2013 @2:12 am

    The important one is Number Eleven.

    11) We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

    There are twelve or fifteen churches which solemnize (conduct religious weddings) for Lesbians and Gays. Since we allow all men the privilege of worshipping God (this has been interpreted to mean Goddess, or Gods plural) in their own way. Since part of their worship is celebrating Same-Sex marriages, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THEM IN THIS.

    I'm not a Mormon (I'm not even religious), so there may be quite a bit of clarifying literature that I'm unaware of, but the reading of that particular rule seems to be that you should be tolerant of others' religious choices, not necessarily supportive. The difference being that tolerance doesn't require that you like it, you just have to let it be, where as supporting something is quite a bit more proactive and generally indicates approval.

    (As a side note, the common confusion between tolerance and active support/approval is parodied wonderfully by "South Park" in the episode "The Death Camp of Tolerance".

  82. Anony Mouse  •  Jul 10, 2013 @2:24 am

    There's a lot of talk (here and elsewhere) about not wanting to see this movie because it would be giving Card money.

    I'll admit, I'm not a producer or a writer, but aren't movie options generally flat fees? Even if Card has a screenplay credit, I find it highly unlikely that he's getting a cut of the gross (or the net, but there's never a net).

    In other words, he already got paid. The success of the movie should have no impact on his checking account. Unless he'll maybe get royalties from DVDs and such, but that seems a stretch for a "based on the novel" credit.

  83. Anony Mouse  •  Jul 10, 2013 @2:32 am

    @En Passant:

    "In fact, I think it is both possible and coherent to despise an artist's politics and prejudices yet admire his work."

    It think it's also easier the more removed you are from the artist. HP Lovecraft is one of my favorite authors, but I wager I would be utterly sick of him after about ten minutes if we had lunch (and not just for his deeply racist views).

    But that was 90+ years ago. Had Del Toro been able to make At The Mountains of Madness, nobody would be calling for a boycott because Lovecraft was a racist.

    Card, on the other hand, is still alive and still saying stupid things. Makes it harder for people to overlook. Or so I assume.

  84. V  •  Jul 10, 2013 @2:53 am

    Could be there's the extra book revenue to consider around the time of the films release.
    Or since there's talk of a boycott, OSC is could be getting pressure from the film people.

  85. Conster  •  Jul 10, 2013 @3:14 am

    @Wayne: I thought there were a few other countries that legalized same-sex marriage before Canada, actually.

  86. Kat  •  Jul 10, 2013 @4:49 am

    I'm always disappointed when I read OSC's stuff on gay marriage. He sounds like a totally different person from the person who wrote his books.

  87. Kilroy  •  Jul 10, 2013 @5:29 am

    "Would having passed a state bar exam be sufficient evidence of my understanding of terms of art?"

    No. God, no. Not even close.

  88. Kat  •  Jul 10, 2013 @5:38 am

    Wow. How did this get onto abortion? That's a deck of a derail.

    I guess the only thing I'll say, which is not an argument for or against but rather is something that rarely gets talked about, is that some women do not handle pregnancy well. I had hyperemesis gravidarum in my first two trimesters this pregnancy and lost over 40 pounds before I could eat and drink again. (I also had to be rehydrated in the hospital once.) Today I go in for a 3-hour glucose tolerance test because I failed the 1-hour test; they're screening me for gestational diabetes. Women who develop gestational diabetes have an extremely high risk of developing diabetes within five years of the pregnancy's end.

    I developed sciatica in my right hip in my last pregnancy because of how my daughter was placed (the sciatica remained after the pregnancy). I also developed extreme problems with high blood pressure which caused some lingering damage to my kidneys.

    I don't want to get involved in this discussion, just wanted to raise the questions:

    1. How should situations like this be handled if the woman wants an abortion? What about for the woman who does not? Is there some weight to having consented to carrying to term which makes the medical harm okay? Or is it always/never okay no matter what choice the woman makes?

    2. If a woman should not get an abortion unless her life is at stake, should there be some provision short of abortion which helps with medical costs and impacts? Should there be no provisions no matter what? Should there be provisions depending on what choice she would have made i.e. wanting an abortion but not getting one?

    3. Is consenting to the risk of conceiving a child the same as consenting to conceive a child? Is there some point at which you can be said to have attempted to mitigate the risk sufficient to shift it to non-consent? If there is no point at which this happens – or if the point does not matter, and the child/potential child's right to develop always trumps any consideration of choice – does it follow that married couples who do not want children should abstain from sex? Should there be special consideration for married couples seeking abortions if it does not follow?

  89. Kat  •  Jul 10, 2013 @5:46 am

    Time for my glucose tolerance test now. I had more questions but oh well. :) I tried my best to construct them as neutrally as possible; if I failed and caused offense then I apologize. Also, in case it wasn't clear from my post, I'm currently in my last trimester of pregnancy. (It's a boy!)

  90. flip  •  Jul 10, 2013 @5:51 am

    Hollywood rarely "gets" science fiction.

    This comment has been made a couple of times. The thing is, this is true of any book-to-movie translation, not just sci fi.

    But it's not a reason to be mad at Hollywood. Most times things in books don't translate to movies; there are too many characters; there are plotlines that add to the texture of the book but will only drag a movie down; pacing, tension and timing all work differently on the page than when performed. The simple fact is that scriptwriters also have to deal with the fact that a book is to be read at your leisure, whereas a movie has to fit into X amount of minutes. A book has a different target market to a movie which means you're going to have to use a slightly different style of writing or presenting the story. There are far larger budgetary restraints to creating a movie than with a book. (A book is a writer or two, and a computer. The rest is marketing and publishing. A movie involves hundreds of people, and with sci fi, hundreds of thousands of computer hours, plus hundreds of cinemas needing to make a profit from something that has a short 'shelf life')

    The fact is if you walk into a movie based on a book, you're probably going to be disappointed in some way. It shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of scriptwriters or of Hollywood in general. It's different for mostly practical reasons that mostly can't be avoided.

    It's worth mentioning actually that stage plays usually work better translated to films than books. Why? Because they're already written in a way that deals with most practical issues. What sounds fascinating in text often doesn't work when it's read out loud. And if you don't believe me – please find your local playwright and go sit in on their next play reading.

    @Dave B

    How much "creative control" does an author get if his work is made into a movie?"

    That would entirely depend on how they structured their contract. I would guess for most authors they hand it over to a film scriptwriter (or a team). Some are approached by a director or producer, who then has a hand in writing the script too.

    "Inspired by" would suggest that they are using the content as a basis but don't want to follow the story too close. This could be for legal reasons – avoiding copyright/royalty issues whilst still using the content – or because they want to tell the same story but with a different angle. Chain of title is interesting:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_rights#Chain_of_title

    But actually this goes back to what I was saying above: having more creative control means you can ensure it's as close to the book as you can get. But it doesn't mean that there would be no changes at all. What works in a book may have to be given up because it doesn't work on screen.

    @Anony Mouse

    I'll admit, I'm not a producer or a writer, but aren't movie options generally flat fees? Even if Card has a screenplay credit, I find it highly unlikely that he's getting a cut of the gross (or the net, but there's never a net).

    Again, depends on the contract. I'm willing to bet that the more people involved in writing the script the fewer dollars the book writer will get. But yeah it's more likely that OSC got a lump sum in exchange for the movie rights (with perhaps a cut of the profits later).

    Besides, it's a well known joke in film that the scriptwriter is usually the one who gets the least amount of money for the work. Headline actors are going to get the biggest cut, then from there, the director and producers.

  91. flip  •  Jul 10, 2013 @5:51 am

    PS. IANAL, or involved in entertainment contracts. Mostly an educated guess from working in the arts.

  92. frymaster  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:35 am

    Dammit, my sarcasm meter exploded. Again.

  93. JRM  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:39 am

    I thought when Rick Horowitz encouraged specific gangs to kill specific groups of government employees, it was heroic and awesome and part of a noble tradition calling for the blood of tyrants to cleanse the streets.

    But this apparently is not awesome. An unpleasant, cynical person might view this as approving only of calling for the murder of one's political enemies.

  94. JT  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:47 am

    Late to this thread, but there is a long history of phenomenal writers who are total a-holes in the social sphere. William Faulkner and Harlan Ellison are two that pop into my head. Also, Doris Lessing's first public statement on winning the Nobel Prize for Literature: "Oh, Christ, I couldn't care less." I don't excuse or condone such aholery; I'm just kind of indifferent toward it, more interested in the work itself. We'd lose plenty from the canon if we boycotted every writer who said stupid things about social issues. (T.S. Eliot on religon, Ezra Pound becoming a fascist, etc.)

  95. Troutwaxer  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:48 am

    "Are there any queers in the theater tonight?
    Get 'em up against the wall!" – Orson Scott Card

    (Or maybe Pink Floyd said that – I can never remember.)

  96. Merissa  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:53 am

    His message is exactly the same as what I've seen elsewhere on the Web since the SCOTUSA ruling, only with bigger words. "We're intolerant of your desire to marry the consenting adult who you love, but you have to be tolerant of our hate speech because tolerance is important. Wah! Wah!"

    It amazes me that a sci-fi writer is so militant about an institution that will likely be obsolete within 200 years. Also, what biological imperative is he talking about? People have kids without being married all the time. If anything, the biological imperative seems to be for polygyny.

    I'll stick to Heinlein. I don't agree with large tracts of his manifesto, but it makes a lot more sense than Card's.

  97. RThomas  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:56 am

    I was a fan of Card's work for years, and when I found out about his outdated views, I was rather offended and disappointed. Having said that, Ender's Game is well worth a read, one of the best science fiction books I've read (and I have read many hundreds of SF books, from the absolutely sublime to completely awful). But, get it from your public library or a used bookstore; most decent libraries have this book. I don't find OSC's other work particularly compelling, compared to Ender's Game, but others might disagree. Anyway there is no way I'm seeing the movie or buying more of his writing. I tolerate his right to say what he thinks, but I have zero obligation to agree with, or subject myself too, anything he says.

  98. Clark  •  Jul 10, 2013 @7:09 am

    > though to be fair as far as I know he has not specifically advocated violent overthrow of any government that fails to imprison sexually active gays. Nuance alert!

    One of my favorite bits from The Onion was an accusation that Pat Buchanan had called for the federal government to burn homosexuals at the stake. Buchanan adamantly denied the charge; burning gays was a states rights issue.

  99. Brian Utterback  •  Jul 10, 2013 @7:22 am

    To be fair, I think that OSC is looking at this from the standpoint that the controversy revolves around him, which in this case it does. He is saying that he wrote the book in 1984 and this issue wasn't on his radar then so the book doesn't reflect an author who is anti-marriage equality. And this issue is no longer on his radar (according to his comments).

  100. Merissa  •  Jul 10, 2013 @7:23 am

    http://www.instantrimshot.com

    I've never read Card because I was scared off by his bigotry before I got the chance. So, he advocates plural marriage but is against gay marriage? Again, what biological imperative is he talking about? Homosexuality and bisexuality are every bit the biological imperatives that reproducing is, assuming that we're talking about urges we have whether they're supported by social mores and scientific predictions of what's good for the species or not. Now he just sounds really bad at science.

  101. S.BEAM  •  Jul 10, 2013 @7:27 am

    I was never a fan of OSC, other than Ender's Game/Shadow I never liked any of his books despite his popularity. While at book signings he came off really arrogent and generally unplesent.

  102. Ken White  •  Jul 10, 2013 @7:50 am

    By the way, I agree with the people who have pointed out (as I have in the past) that the reaction to an asshole artist is personal and arbitrary. I hold no grudge and make no judgment against anyone who goes to see the movie or reads Card's books. I like Wagner, but I hate Pound. Why? Dunno.

    But his pretended victimhood is contemptible.

  103. Jeremy  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:02 am

    If I avoided movies because of the dumb things that people who made them let out of their mouths, I would never watch a movie.

  104. Jewels  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:35 am

    @Wayne Borean

    Costner is right; The Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage, not Canada. I think Canada was fourth, after Belgium and Spain.

    That doesn't take away that it's a lovely thought that "Almighty God" could/should be "interpreted to mean Goddess, or Gods plural". Unfortunately it seems your interpretation is not the norm (yet).

    I have a sneaking suspicion that until mankind develops the ability to accept that just because someone else’s belief does not stroke with his/her own, it need not threaten/get in the way of said belief, no amount of tenets, be they government or “religiously” imposed, will help convince a bigot that there might be another way of thinking.

  105. MelK  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:39 am

    Learning about OSC's views of homosexuality through reading or watching "Ender's Game" seems about as rational as learning about Roald Dahl's views on tact, compassion and tolerance through reading or watching "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". Or perhaps about Harlan Ellison's views on the suffering of fools by reading or watching "A Boy and his Dog".

    It might make for an introduction to a topic, but it provides at best an oblique view.

  106. Tony Muhlenkamp  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:40 am

    " … I am a vocal opponent of the use of government to promote individual religious dogma,…" I am equally opposed to using government to promote individual NON-religious dogma; and I fear that redefining marriage is a gateway to forcing the Church to bend to .gov dogma. It's not about gay marriage; it's about marriage. What happens to a priest that refuses to perform the ceremony or offer the sacraments for a same gender couple, or a couple in an open marriage, or that is contraceptive? All of these violate the teachings of the church on what it means to be married; should the church be forced to accept these lifestyles? To literally put their seal of approval on something it believes separates you from God?

    The church teaches that marriage is unitive and procreative; any sexual congress outside of marriage puts your soul at risk. So if you want to engage in sex outside of marriage the church will pray for you, but ultimately that decision is up to you.

    But by your actions you have placed yourself outside the church. I'm concerned that people choosing these behaviors will use this issue to force the Church to condone and accept behavior that is unacceptable. So forget gay marriage; should the .gov force the church to offer me the sacraments if I am engaged in extramarital sex; should the .gov be able to force the church to perform a mixed gender marriage if my wife and I proclaim our intention to have an open marriage or a contraceptive marriage? I see the potential for a real threat to religious freedom as an unintended consequence of changing the definition of marriage.

  107. Ken White  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:48 am

    So forget gay marriage; should the .gov force the church to offer me the sacraments if I am engaged in extramarital sex; should the .gov be able to force the church to perform a mixed gender marriage if my wife and I proclaim our intention to have an open marriage or a contraceptive marriage?

    The state has no business whatsoever telling churches how to administer a sacrament. A good start on the state of the law preventing the government from interfering with sacraments is Employment Division v. Smith.

    If you're going to blame anyone for bringing us closer to the point where the government regulates sacraments, point the finger first at religious forces that argue that the government should "protect marriage" because it is "sacred." Demanding that the government police sacredness is effectively an open invitation for the government to get involved in regulating sacraments.

  108. Noah Callaway  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:59 am

    "the reaction to an asshole artist is personal and arbitrary"

    I'm particularly torn on Ender's Game (the book, not the movie). I really like many of the ideas presented within Ender's Game and want to expose more people to those ideas (and to the book). Yet I strongly dislike the author, and don't want to provide him more money to promote his more recent causes.

    I suppose it's time to make better use of the library…

  109. James Pollock  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:08 am

    "That's facetiousness."
    You've JUST NOW picked up on that?

  110. bill  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:11 am

    @Blaise Pascal – I hear you .

  111. James Pollock  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:12 am

    "There's a lot of talk (here and elsewhere) about not wanting to see this movie because it would be giving Card money.

    I'll admit, I'm not a producer or a writer, but aren't movie options generally flat fees? Even if Card has a screenplay credit, I find it highly unlikely that he's getting a cut of the gross (or the net, but there's never a net).
    In other words, he already got paid. The success of the movie should have no impact on his checking account."

    Too simplistic. If this movie does well, Hollywood will look at the rest of his back catalog. If it doesn't, they won't.

  112. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:18 am

    "What happens to a priest that refuses to perform the ceremony or offer the sacraments for a same gender couple, or a couple in an open marriage, or that is contraceptive?"

    Priests have refused to marry various folks for as long as we've had a nation, I presume. Certainly, there are churches that will not marry interfaith couples, interracial couples, couples where one member has been divorced, and so forth. And yet, no one has been able to show me one instance where a church has been forced to sanctify any couple they objected to. So same-sex marriage is not offering anything new into the equation… nor, for that matter, would barring same-sex marriage prevent it. The whole "religious freedom is impinged if we allow same-sex couple to marry" logic is a sham.

    Or to look at it another way: what if it's true? What if it is a violation of religious freedom to allow a couple to marry whenever some church would not want them to be able to marry within their church? That would mean that every church had veto power over every marriage. No two Jews could marry each other, to preserve the right of the Catholic church not to hold the ceremony; no two Catholics could marry, so as to save Temple Beth Davenport the risk of the suit. And thus is marriage banned.

    If there is some risk of churches being forced to marry couples – and U.S. history certainly suggests otherwise – then that should be protected by reinforcing the laws that prevent churches from being forced to marry folks, not by singling out one group that some churches might object to and barring them and only them from marriage. When you go that latter route, it's pretty clear that it's not about religious freedom, it's about th'gay.

  113. Wayne Borean  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:28 am

    Jewels,

    My viewpoint on this is public knowledge in the Church. I know that it has caused a little upset in certain places, however no one has ever called me on it.

    And no one will. I'm right! Just because someone else's spiritual beliefs don't match yours, doesn't mean that they don't have a right to hold those beliefs.

    I'd like to point out a couple of additional points:

    1) Orrin Hatch, R-UT voted in committee for a bill that would make it illegal to discriminate against LGBTQ people in the workplace, in the same manner as it is illegal to discriminate on basis of race or religion.

    2) Orson Scott Card said in another post that while it was impossible to be a Mormon in good standing and be gay or lesbian (note that it is also impossible to be a member in good standing of a wide variety of other faiths). This is a religious, not legal difference.

    Now that's where we get into the fun stuff. Various religions have various rules. These rules make little or no sense to people from outside of the faith. I'm not going to get into the details of which faith does what. Specifics don't matter.

    What does matter is how well the members of that faith can interact with those not of their faith.

    And on that, well, a lot of us don't do a very good job, whether we be Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or Islamic.

    Wayne

  114. James Pollock  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:28 am

    "Hollywood rarely "gets" science fiction.
    This comment has been made a couple of times. The thing is, this is true of any book-to-movie translation, not just sci fi."

    The thing is, SF as a genre has rules, and Hollywood "sci fi" doesn't feel constrained to them. While it may be true that Hollywood doesn't do a good job of translating, say, Westerns or Romances, they don't, as a rule, mangle them so bad as to take them out of the genre they started in. If Hollywood adapts a Western novel, the result is a Western movie. If Hollywood adapts a romance novel, the result is a romance movie. But when Hollywood adapts a science fiction novel, the result is almost certainly not science fiction.

  115. Grifter  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:43 am

    Because Card is alive, supporting his work entails supporting him.

    Even if he got a flat fee for his work (and so was already paid), going to see the movie makes it more likely that Hollywood will want to create more movies based on his work, which will get him more money.

    I don't want to be a part of putting money in his pocket.

    When he croaks, I'll buy copies of the books I've now given away (so as to prevent others from lining his pockets). When he croaks, I will accept his work on its own merits. In the meantime, I can't unlink "supporting this art" with "supporting this bigoted douchebag".

  116. JLA Girl  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:18 am

    I purchased Ender's Game and a couple of graphic novels written by Card a little while ago. I enjoyed the graphic novels but hadn't read the book yet. I wasn't aware of his repugnant views at that time. I am now.

    Between finding out his stance on homosexuality and reading the EW blurb asking for 'tolerance', I went through my stacks of reading material and tossed out everything I have that was written by him. I don't care how great the work is, I'm ashamed that I gave this guy a nickel.

    I felt sick just knowing I gave the guy money. Even putting the books to recycle didn't feel like enough. I wanted to burn them.

  117. Andy Whitfield  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:26 am

    Dan Simmons is another one who (up til recently) had managed to separate his somewhat extremist views from his writing. Hyperion/Fall of Hyperion is one of the great sci-fi works. But after reading Flashback, which was basically a Glenn Beck-esque screed disguised as a novel, it's hard to separate the author from the fiction. Same for Card. But I try, because both books are absolutely amazing.

  118. MrJM  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:28 am

    To be fair, fuck that guy!

    – MrJM

  119. Moriah Jovan  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:38 am

    @Wayne Borean

    Orson Scott Card said in another post that while it was impossible to be a Mormon in good standing and be gay or lesbian (note that it is also impossible to be a member in good standing of a wide variety of other faiths). This is a religious, not legal difference.

    He may have said that, but he's wrong. The church has no beef with gay or lesbian members who are not engaging in sexual conduct. The church has a beef with any member who is engaging in sexual conduct outside marriage. (Which begs the marriage question, but still.)

    @whoever up above said Card was for polygamy: Call for reference.

    Re Ender's Game: So sad to peak so early in your career.

  120. Lizard  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:42 am

    [blockquote]What happens to a priest that refuses to perform the ceremony or offer the sacraments for a same gender couple, or a couple in an open marriage, or that is contraceptive? [/blockquote]

    The same thing that's happened to those clergy who refused to perform interracial marriages since Loving vs. Virginia, or, for that matter, who refused to perform interfaith marriages since the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

    ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    Given that fact — a very simple fact that anyone who thinks they have anything to offer to this debate ought to know by default — I think it is a safe assumption that anyone raising any question or argument of the general form of "But.. but…. gay nazi commies forcing poor old Father O'Malley to perform homosexual mass marriages to donkeys at gunpoint!" should be considered to be arguing in bad faith or profound ignorance. They either know full well they are raising an invalid argument, or they are far too uninformed to have anything to add to the discussion.

    I call this Starscream's Dilemma, from an episode of the classic Transformers cartoon, where Megatron, enraged, asked of his oft-treasonous subordinate:"Are you lying, or just stupid?"

    So: Lying or stupid? Which is it?

  121. Lizard  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:43 am

    Aaaand… HTML fail by me. I plead "stupid" for this one.

  122. whheydt  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:54 am

    I have read various articles stating that the Mormon church is backing off its opposition to SSM, at least to the point of not throwing money, resources, and–possibly–its reputation at the issue. Thus, Card may–in time–claim never to have said the things that have been documented as coming from him.

    On the "when is abortion legal" issue… My take is that a fetus that is developed enough to survive outside the womb without "heroic" medical measures should be granted rights to survive. When I say without heroic medical measures, it would be a significant survival rate–say, 80%–of a premature birth with only the sort of support that would be routine in a medical setting, or even with no trained medical personnel at all. Modern medicine can work wonders. We save preemies that would have certainly died in time earlier in my lifetime, but at tremendous cost.

  123. Fred Davis  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:55 am

    It bears pointing out, amid all of this hooha, that OSC has only tepidly apologised for the homophobia.

    Until he apologises and makes amends for his atrocious novelisation of Hamlet I give no benefits of any doubts to that vile monster.

  124. Moriah Jovan  •  Jul 10, 2013 @10:58 am

    @Fred Davis:

    Until he apologises and makes amends for his atrocious novelisation of Hamlet I give no benefits of any doubts to that vile monster.

    Oh, that was a right mess, wannit?

  125. Lizard  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:05 am

    @Fred: I haven't seen an apology, tepid or otherwise (I am not saying there hasn't been one, just that I haven't seen it, so I'd like a link if possible.) The most recent PR from OSC isn't an apology, it's a "You won, stop hitting me already! And see my movie!". He never says he was wrong, or even that he has to rethink his ideas, or anything else; he just says he recognizes the way the wind is blowing.

    There was a conversation in Firefly:
    Alliance Officer:"A war where you were on the wrong side."
    Mal Reynolds:"May have been the losing side. Not sure it was the wrong one."
    (From memory, paraphrased)

    That's OSC's current position, as I see it. He admits he's lost. He does not think he was wrong. Unlike Mal Reynolds, though, he wasn't fighting for a moral cause, and doesn't get to play the "proud of my struggle, even though I lost" card. (Well, he can, but he'll be laughed at. Like this: Ha ha!)

  126. perlhaqr  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:08 am

    Xenocles, James Pollock, Terry Towels, others: I favor the "trespassing" doctrine. Just because I invite you into my house doesn't mean I can't later ask you to leave.

    Wayne: Orson Scott Card said in another post that while it was impossible to be a Mormon in good standing and be gay or lesbian (note that it is also impossible to be a member in good standing of a wide variety of other faiths). This is a religious, not legal difference.

    OSC is wrong about that, too. You can't be a Mormon in good standing and be a sexually active gay or lesbian. Because gays and lesbians can't get married, and that would be sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage, which is verboten, just as it is for straight folks. (Yes, and they can't get married in the church, so it's something of a catch 22. I do wonder how that will play once gays and lesbians can get married in Utah. Yes, I realise not all Mormons are in Utah.)

  127. different Jess  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:10 am

    If you really want to screw up OSC's shit, perhaps the best thing to do would be to send copies of his novel Songmaster to all of the bigwigs at his church and on his little political committee. I was young when I read that one, and the implied pederasty and a really-fairly-explicit gay teen love scene expanded my horizons. (Although I was never again disappointed that I hadn't been a choirboy.) That doesn't make the book unique among scifi books, but it might be unique among Mormon books.

  128. perlhaqr  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:14 am

    Lizard: I get your point about Loving v. Virginia, but to be scrupulously fair, the LDS Church does have a history of the Feds messing about with them over their position on marriage.

    Which, on the other side of "scrupulously fair", is why I have extra contempt for the LDS church advocating for the government to impose their view of marriage on everyone else. I would hope that having been on the receiving end of the hickory shampoo before, they'd have more sympathy for the victim, and not the oppressor. :-/

  129. Kevin Lyda  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:51 am

    A few points:

    Why does it matter if being gay is a choice? Religion is a choice – we protect that. Speech is a choice – we protect that. Unless there's some compelling interest, why should we care who two consenting adults get together with?

    As far as whether there's a choice involved that's really more of an interesting discussion about the human species. We know there are benefits to people coupling up (benefits to society as a whole as well as the individuals) and we also know that many children need replacements for their biological parents (death and other things). So a pool of stable childless couples benefits society as a whole (one might even imagine there was evolutionary pressure for this). There seems to be some indication that the more older (maternal-side) brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay, so that seems to support that view.

    Lastly there are loads of better authors than OSC. I can recommend The Martian by Andy Weir for instance. If you must watch/read his work, get it in a way that doesn't give him money. He'll spend it (in part) on harming others.

  130. En Passant  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:08 pm

    Anony Mouse wrote Jul 10, 2013 @2:32 am:

    It think it's also easier the more removed you are from the artist. …

    Card, on the other hand, is still alive and still saying stupid things. Makes it harder for people to overlook. Or so I assume.

    Both Pound and Eliot were alive when I formed my first opinions of them both as to artistry, and bizarre antisemitic politics.

    Kids these days! ;^)

    Ken White wrote Jul 10, 2013 @7:50 am:

    … I like Wagner, but I hate Pound. Why? Dunno. …

    Heh. I don't hate Wagner, I just prefer chamber music over helmets and spears.

    Try Pound's "translations" of Li Po. Lousy Chinese linguistics, but superb English poetry. I've always found The River-Merchant's Wife: A Letter quite moving.

  131. Dave B  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:21 pm

    You could say that all the asshats who say marriage is a religious institution for procreation and every other conduct is sinfull only want breeders and new disciples for their religion

    No contraceptives for anyone as that would take the procreation out of the marriage. Too old/can't get instantly pregnant at the first try => sinner and sinners shouldn't be married.
    Loving anyone and not producing any new praisebabies => sinner.
    Degrading anyone to become a baby factory.

    If those types succeed in overthrowing a government => theocracy.

  132. Trent  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:28 pm

    There was a story in the news recently (as in last few years) in which it was revealed that a church had refused to allow a wedding ceremony of an inter-racial couple because of complaints from the congregation. There was most certainly a backlash against this view, but it didn't involve the government. It involved a massive public backlash for the views including tens of thousands of people expressing their dislike of the pastor and church's views.

    Free speech is probably the single most important value in a free society but free speech also means the ability to speak against or even counter economically the speech of views you find distasteful. OSC's call for "tolerance" is nothing more than a call for people not to react economically to his bigoted speech. The goal is to suppress the views of people he doesn't agree with so that he is immune from the public reaction against his speech. In other words his call for "tolerance" is a call to restrict the speech of those who disagree with him. It would be ironic if it weren't so common for bigots like him to demand "tolerance" of their bigoted views.

    Like many others I read the OSC novels as a young adult and loved the complex stories (of which I believe I read more into the story than OSC intended, based on interviews of his I've read). But I'm sick to my stomach that I ever may have provided economic benefit to him and his bigoted views (even though I read the books through the library). He won't see a dime from me in the future, just like Chik Fil'a won't ever see another dime. I'm exercising my free speech to refuse to do economic activity with people who's views I find distasteful and I absolutely will NOT be "tolerant" of such distasteful views.

  133. mojo  •  Jul 10, 2013 @12:48 pm

    Mighty white of you it was too, Ken.

    (see what I did there?)

  134. R  •  Jul 10, 2013 @1:12 pm

    "Tolerance means that people must be able to revile gays and gay marriage without any social consequence."

    This is pretty dicey right here, there is always going to be social consequences for anything. We can all agree there must be no legal consequence for expressing a personal opinion, no matter how vile, as it would be protected free speech.

    Do you think tolerance means there should be no social consequences for supporting gays and gay marriage? I mean one must be accompanied by the other. If it's okay to have social consequences for being against something, it must be okay to have social consequences for being for that same thing.

    Orson Scott Card is entitled to his opinion and whatever consequences might come of it. However it might be worth remembering the Chic Fillet saga, in which attempting to boycott or stir up ill will/ban a company for the opinions of it's originator backlashed in massive support for the first ammendment and by proxy the company.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I support Orson Scott Card's right to be a bigot, and your right to call him out as such. However, as long as his personal opinions don't make it into the film, I will gladly go and see it. The book was amazing the movie (I hope) will be amazing too.

    Consider this counter example, if you ever pick up a copy of Cold Days by Jim Butcher the hardback version has on page 303 a direct and blatant pro gay agenda lecture. I found it vastly irritating, not because it was a pro gay agenda, but because it was forced upon me in the middle of the story. I was just as annoyed when Brad Pitt stopped near the end of World War Z to drink a Pepsi. The blatant product placement jars the reader/viewer out of the story and I found that unpleasant. It's like how the transformers movies are unapologetically racist, like alien robots from another dimension would choose to align themselves with the USA and attack middle eastern "terrorist" facilities. That stuff is irksome. I hope little of Mr. Card's personal views/blatant bigotry leak into film.

  135. Al I.  •  Jul 10, 2013 @1:13 pm

    Kevin–allow me to offer my belated apology for misreading your comment previously.

  136. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 10, 2013 @1:34 pm

    R: the boycott of Chick-fil-a very much achieved the intended end goal; the company made a public statement that they would not support the antigay groups. As such, the backlash is retty ireelevant.

  137. EAB  •  Jul 10, 2013 @1:48 pm

    @Trent, the story you're referring to is, I think, the First Baptist Church of Crystal Springs, MS, which refused to marry a black (not interracial) couple about a year ago.

    The FBC remains the largest and most prominent church in Crystal Springs, and there was no exodus of membership or leadership change. While they apologized to the couple in question and said that the incident "should never have happened", there were absolutely no material consequences for their behavior beyond the media attention. To the best of my knowledge, they have not subsequently conducted any weddings of non-white couples.

    For bonus head-explosion, here's what our governor had to say about it: "Look, when people want to get married, we ought to let them get married,” Bryant said. “We have enough people that won’t go and get married. I want to make every opportunity I can for any couple that wants to, to go get married…. I wouldn’t say gay couples, no. When I say couples, I automatically assume it's a man and a woman”

  138. AlphaCentauri  •  Jul 10, 2013 @3:15 pm

    I always wondered what discussions occurred behind the scenes when Eddie Murphy agreed to play the lead role in the remake (and subsequent sequels) of the movie Doctor Doolittle. When the original movie came out, I got a set of the books for a gift from my grandmother. Even at my young age, I was made uncomfortable by how racist the book version was in the section where the doctor travels to Africa.

    But perhaps having a Black actor play in the movie is the ultimate slapdown to the Lofting's racist assumptions while holding onto the interesting parts of the story.

  139. liza  •  Jul 10, 2013 @3:30 pm

    Dear Favorite Author,

    I Love your books. I am a bookaholic. You can string me along postponing your newest release. But please and I mean please do not ruin my opinion of you by telling me your position on social issues. Nothing will turn me away faster no matter your position. I rush to amazon to cancel my preorder.

  140. Aaron  •  Jul 10, 2013 @4:04 pm

    Not reading through all of the comments, despite OCR's views, the book is really very much worth reading. Although I read it as a kid and on and off before I heard about his personal views, I still think that while you might personally not like what he says, that particular book of his is definitely worth reading. Good art is good art regardless of the views of the artist.

  141. Alec  •  Jul 10, 2013 @4:22 pm

    I've always found the alleged analogy between Ender and Hitler to be a fascinating example of Card's character. Whether or not you believe the analogy exists the evidence supporting this claim still brings to light many subtleties the average reader (myself included) may have missed. I highly recommend reading the following analysis.

    http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm

    There are many others but of the very few I've read this seems to be one of the most eloquent.

  142. Jonathan  •  Jul 10, 2013 @6:59 pm

    Am I the only one who thought Ender's Game was a highly overrated snooze?

  143. danny  •  Jul 10, 2013 @8:27 pm

    "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing" But by Card's logic, good people should be "tolerant" of evil, and go see the movie the evil made.

  144. Xenocles  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:14 pm

    Alec-

    That article is a mishmash of amateur pop psychology and over-the-top Godwining. You missed the parallels because they aren't there; they are the invention of an academic (I presume) trying to earn fame by stirring the pot.

  145. James Pollock  •  Jul 10, 2013 @9:15 pm

    On the one hand, I disagree with Mr. Card's ideas of marriage and family. On the other hand, the movie represents the work of hundreds of people who may or may not share Mr. Card's ideas of marriage and family.
    On the gripping hand, I've never read the book, don't intend to, and have no excitement (either way) for this movie.

  146. whheydt  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:02 pm

    Re; James Pollock:

    +rep for the Niven _Mote in God's Eye_ reference.

  147. Grifter  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:33 pm

    @James Pollock:

    Those folks chose to work with him, though. Isn't that just the Death Star Objection?

  148. James Pollock  •  Jul 10, 2013 @11:45 pm

    Grifter, you need to learn how a "gripping hand" analysis works.

    But… everybody who worked on the Death Star knew how Palpatine worked, they knew how Grand Moff Tarkin worked, and they knew how Vader worked. They KNOWINGLY signed on for the job (except the stormtroopers, of course, who don't get a choice. There's an argument there of some kind but I think it's a different one.
    But I don't think it's quite the same. First off, what are the odds that the 3rd assistant grip knows anything at all about Mr. Card (much less his theories on family)?
    I would bet that A) most of the people who worked on the movie are ignorant of Mr. Card's objectionable (or entirely reasonable, depending on your point of view) opinions. B) Most of them consider themselves to be working for someone else. In other words, it's not "Card's movie", it's "(director)'s movie" or "(producer)'s movie" or even "(studio)'s movie". To get what I'm going for here, imagine the job of assistant coach for a pro football team. Do you work for the head coach, or the team owner? Do you ever interact with the team owner, to know his political and social opinions? Does the owner's wackadoodle opinions on politics or social issues have anything at all to do with next Sunday's game?

  149. Demosthenes  •  Jul 11, 2013 @5:17 am

    Ken, here's a passage from Ender's Game that you might want to consider before another post like this one:

    "Ender's anger was cold, and he could use it. Bonzo's was hot, and so it used him."

  150. AlphaCentauri  •  Jul 11, 2013 @6:00 am

    If you want to make a point about objecting to Card's politics, but you think art is something that becomes independent of the artist once created, you can just wait until the movie has finished "first run." If it doesn't make beaucoups money in the first few weeks, studios won't be encouraged to make movies of more of his books. And you'll probably get to see the film on a much larger screen in a majestic but decaying old theater.

  151. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 11, 2013 @6:31 am

    The third assistant grip is not a profit participant in the film, is not presumed to be involved in any sequels, and is not likely to have the emptional involvement in the film. It was just a gig, and she has likely gone on to several more before the film was released. No one is going to say "that film failed because of the quality of he third assistant gripping."

  152. James Pollock  •  Jul 11, 2013 @6:46 am

    "The third assistant grip is not a profit participant in the film, is not presumed to be involved in any sequels, and is not likely to have the emptional involvement in the film."
    It is very likely that two out of these three things are also true of Mr. Card.

  153. Fred Davis  •  Jul 11, 2013 @7:57 am

    But this isn't the DSM-V James, any ONE of those three things would be sufficient reason to boycott the movie because of OSC's views, and indeed the main reason I see time and again cited is that the money OSC will recieve as a proportion of the profits from the movie's ticket and DVD sales will be money he'll funnel into NOM.

  154. Daniel Taylor  •  Jul 11, 2013 @8:25 am

    …and the free market will punish companies that engage in or support discrimination.

  155. bw1  •  Jul 11, 2013 @9:02 am

    Personally, my decision to see the movie or read the book is unaffected by Card's personal political views. Tell me, those who plan to boycott Card's works, do you subject every single person from whom you purchase goods or services as to a political view litmus test? That seems like a logistical nightmare. How can you get anything done between interogating your your letter carrier, the guy who picks up your trash, and your barber or dry cleaner about where they stand on DOMA? I think a lot of the dysfunctional behavior kids take up in emulation of popular musicians, athletes, and actors might be prevented if their parents behavior better modeled the concept that these people merely provide a service and satisfaction with that service does not equate to endorsement of their views or lifestyle choices.

    RogerX – Skill as an author doesn't say anything about a person's worldview.

  156. Daniel Taylor  •  Jul 11, 2013 @9:08 am

    @bw1: a very succinct analysis against free market regulation of commercial behavior. Congratulations.

  157. James Pollock  •  Jul 11, 2013 @10:58 am

    "this isn't the DSM-V James, any ONE of those three things would be sufficient reason to boycott the movie because of OSC's views"

    First off, I don't understand the reference to the DSM, so I'm skipping over that whole phrase.
    The fact that (the movie was made by people who may or may not share Mr. Card's views is a reason to boycott it) = (keeping one's views on controversial subjects private is a reason to boycott them).

    I disagree with this premise, as I respect people's rights to NOT announce their position on every controversial subject, as well as supporting their right to not have a position in the first place.

    Now, should evidence appear that all the many filmworkers secretly share Mr. Card's opinion, you might have a point.

  158. James Pollock  •  Jul 11, 2013 @11:09 am

    "those who plan to boycott Card's works, do you subject every single person from whom you purchase goods or services as to a political view litmus test?"
    No, only those who make a point of announcing their political and social issue positions to me. To move to a different context, if I'm at a garage sale and they announced that a portion of sales will be donated to the Red Cross (or some other charitable organization I support), that may affect my purchasing decisions. If they ahve a banner saying that proceeds will benefit the New Hitler Youth, that ALSO may affect my purchasing decisions. If they have no sign at all and are therefore assumed to be the sole beneficiaries of any proceeds, that also may affect my decisions. Of course, the items offered, the prices asked, the willingness to negotiate on price and delivery & storage options, also will affect my decisions.
    This is an effect that fundraisers have been relying on for generations… will you pay $4 for a $2 box of cookies if you know that the other $2 goes to a good cause?

  159. James Pollock  •  Jul 11, 2013 @11:10 am

    "the free market will punish companies that engage in or support discrimination."
    Since when?

  160. Lizard  •  Jul 11, 2013 @11:15 am

    @perlhaqr: A valid point, re, the Mormon Church and federal interference, but, as far as I know, the Mormons have never been compelled to marry anyone it doesn't think should be married, or recognize a marriage for the purposes of their faith.

    The right of religious organizations to discriminate has been upheld in many different ways over the decades. Many things which are legal (abortion, drinking, tobacco, gambling) are still condemned by different faiths, and churches are free to make any rules they wish about who can be a member, who can be married in the eyes of their religion, and so on. DOMA, and state laws about gay marriage in general, are entirely focused on the *secular* aspects of marriage, and only cross over, tenuously, into the realm of faith when a faith-based organization works in the secular realm. If a catholic hospital, for example, for purposes of visitation or medical authorization, considers people "married" if they're Jews, atheists, Protestants, Muslims, or anything else which isn't Catholic, it should accept homosexual marriages the same way. This isn't remotely close to "The Catholic church will be forced to perform gay marriages", and I must repeat my earlier statement: Anyone who asserts otherwise is either lying or stupid. (Possibly both, but certainly at least one.)

    (Polygamy/polyandry, I have no moral problem with at all, as long as everyone's a consenting adult. I do accept that the mechanical, legal, problems would be an order of magnitude higher than gay marriage. We have centuries of law and precedent around the idea that a "marriage" is two people. The role of gender in most of those laws is very small, and so the structure of the law needs to be changed very little, it at all, to accommodate same-sex couples. We do not have a lot of law or precedent on poly marriages — for example, a husband is ill. One wife supports a risky treatment. One wife opposes it. Who has seniority? At this point, I don't see a lot of social pressure building that would mandate this issue be addressed any time soon. If such pressure builds, possibly as changing economic conditions make group marriages a new form of extended family, then, we'll deal with it.)

  161. Lizard  •  Jul 11, 2013 @11:24 am

    @Bw1: I address the issue of "But you boycott some stuff, and not other stuff!" here: https://www.facebook.com/LizardSF/posts/10151519433227876

  162. Daniel Taylor  •  Jul 11, 2013 @11:29 am

    @James: since never, actually.

  163. perlhaqr  •  Jul 11, 2013 @1:55 pm

    Lizard: I agree that the objection on their part is silly, I'm just giving them a hair more credit than I might otherwise, due to FedGov Institutional PTSD.

    I also realised last night that I only ever use the phrase "to be scrupulously fair" when I'm about to damn someone with very faint praise.

    It has actually occurred to me to attempt to get married in an LDS temple (which would of course be denied) specifically so that I could attempt to sue them (and lose) to set the precedent that they're allowed to not marry people they don't want to, and that's legally OK.

    Not that I have the spare cash to do anything of the sort.

  164. James Pollock  •  Jul 11, 2013 @3:25 pm

    "It has actually occurred to me to attempt to get married in an LDS temple (which would of course be denied) specifically so that I could attempt to sue them (and lose) to set the precedent that they're allowed to not marry people they don't want to, and that's legally OK."

    Well, the filing fee is going to cost some money, but you could draft it pro se and since the suit should properly be dismissed on the opening round of motions before an answer even needs to be filed, it should be fairly inexpensive for both of you. Unfortunately, to get to really stick as legal precedent, you'll have to get the case to the appellate level, which is going to be more expensive.

  165. neverjaunty  •  Jul 11, 2013 @9:57 pm

    Here in California, it took two attempts to get through a (wholly superfluous) bill codifying the principle that religious groups can't be forced to do purely religious things (such as performing weddings) in a way that violates their faith. Guess who was 100% opposed to it? Hint: not the gays.

  166. Palimpsest  •  Jul 12, 2013 @2:12 am

    Card's statement that same sex marriage is a moot point hasn't gotten to the National Organization for Marriage spokesman who was on NPR today talking about how they had to do a long term education of people on why marriage is only between a penis and a vagina and that it might take many years.
    So he's not telling the truth about the organization he's involved in.

    To restate the obvious; tolerance for someone who advocates criminalizing homosexual activity is allowing them to speak. I believe in allowing him to speak, but I have no interested in buying products he profits from.

  167. flip  •  Jul 12, 2013 @5:01 am

    @James Pollock

    The thing is, SF as a genre has rules, and Hollywood "sci fi" doesn't feel constrained to them. While it may be true that Hollywood doesn't do a good job of translating, say, Westerns or Romances, they don't, as a rule, mangle them so bad as to take them out of the genre they started in. If Hollywood adapts a Western novel, the result is a Western movie. If Hollywood adapts a romance novel, the result is a romance movie. But when Hollywood adapts a science fiction novel, the result is almost certainly not science fiction.

    This would come under the headings of "what works on the page may not work on the screen" and "budgetary issues", amongst other things. The third thing it would come under that is worth mentioning specifically is "marketing". As I hinted at, a book has a different audience than a movie and anything Hollywood (or rather, anything not indie) is going to be directed at what I like to call the lowest common denominator. As in, it has to appeal to as many people as possible not just the sci fi geeks. That's the only way to get a profit on something that is going to need a huge budget to do well.

    If we look at your examples: romances have a much farther reach than sci fi generally does. Same with Westerns or anything involving large explosives or guns. Take a look at each season of films, and you will see them probably evenly split between romcoms and action.

    There is one other point which flows from this and that is that romcoms/action films generally also rely on a very simple, formulaic plot. Romcom = boy meets girl, general slapstick, boy gets girl. Westerns = boy meets Russian/Arab/whatever flavour of the month villain, reluctant hero shooting, boy saves world. Sci fi on the other hand has a lot more nuance to it and that is much harder to put into a formulaic script that guarantees a box office hit. If you look at a lot of the sci fi hits over the past years I'm willing to bet most of them are simply Westerns or thrillers but with space suits, rather than true sci fi themes.

    In fact, one can see the plot twists coming fast and think if you know the formulas; but producers want something they know will sell and it's why they keep going back to the well.

    So yes, it's going to be harder but no movie is ever going to totally represent the original book no matter what genre it's in. It just means you have to slightly lower your expectations a bit. If anything, I would blame producers who trend towards the safe options (formulas) rather than taking a risk and doing something that shows their audience thinks or that they can't milk for three sequels. Or actually part of the blame goes towards audience who tend not to take risks when going to see movies – art house or indie films get smaller audiences no matter how good they are. Which brings us nicely back to that issue of marketing and needing to capture wider audiences.

    The sum is, that I don't think it's that Hollywood writers don't get sci fi. I think it's just not marketable in the same manner as other genres, and that many of the problems of translating works are inherent to the process rather than the people.

    Quoting @R above proves some of my points for me:

    I was just as annoyed when Brad Pitt stopped near the end of World War Z to drink a Pepsi. The blatant product placement jars the reader/viewer out of the story and I found that unpleasant.

    That is not a writing issue. That is a marketing and producing one. The writer will have had to have written that in, no matter how much they would have despised it.

    On the other hand, the movie represents the work of hundreds of people who may or may not share Mr. Card's ideas of marriage and family.

    I entirely agree with you on this. Despite blockbusters being million-dollar profits, those millions of dollars usually pay for costs and very little goes to most of the other people who worked on it. These days a low budget film is one with a few million in the bank.

    @Grifter (although James Pollock beat me to it)

    Those folks chose to work with him, though. Isn't that just the Death Star Objection?

    That's akin to saying the folks on The Office chose to work with Michael Scott. There are many ways you may not actually choose to work with a particular person, from simply being one of the extras bused in and not really told much about the film beforehand (or not caring since you may only want a line on a resume and a free lunch in exchange for a day's shoot), to the crew who may be subcontracted on from various places.

    I mean, what if Spielberg hired you to work on someone's film, which wasn't directly objectionable but the writer has some terrible ideas of the world? How do you choose to give up some good paying work on something that is actually exciting to you vs the not-mentioned but distinct views of the writer? The truth is that people are more likely to be interested in the chance to work with X director than Y writer. Especially since performing artists in generally never meet the writer, get notes from the writer, or have any reason to learn anything directly from the writer. (Case in point, on an actor's resume the title of the movie is added, the role performed is added, the director's name is added, and sometimes the year of publication is added. But nobody puts the writer's name on it)

    The sad thing actually is that the performing arts is so competitive and so little paying work to go around that very few people turn down work based on the opinions and views held by whoever else works on the film. Although it's worth mentioning that those who do get a little boycotting of their own; people tend to want stars to shut up and keep their 'politics' to themselves. So it makes it very hard for a lot of people to steer clear of paying gigs if they don't agree with some of the politics.

    A lot of people forget that there's such a small market that very few people in the arts can pick and choose what they work on. Not unless they plan on being poorer than average (last time I looked $30k/year was the average for performing artists) and/or doing it as a hobby.

    Plus like many people here, some people just aren't interested in separating the art from the artist's views. In fact, I'm betting that a lot of starlets out there go for the controversial artists simply because they think the publicity will get them a leg up on their own career.

    @Nat Gerler

    The third assistant grip is not a profit participant in the film, is not presumed to be involved in any sequels, and is not likely to have the emptional involvement in the film.

    Not true. I doubt crew would work for free unless on seriously low budget films. They will have been paid standard award rates, ensured by their union. They may indeed be involved on sequels, because as anyone in the arts knows, reliability and dedication often trumps everything else. You can only act like a puffed-up diva if you are actually the headliner or important enough not to be replaceable. If you find a good crew you enjoy working with and they don't muck about, you tend to re-hire them.

    They also might have an emotional involvement in the film, but you'd never know because nobody gives two figs about finding out about the third assistant grip's opinions even if they are an up-and-coming director. If you want opinions you ask the director, maybe the director of cinematography, the stars… but everyone assumes that anyone else is just there to 'do a job' which is hardly true at all. Most extras and crew will have an opinion just like everyone else and will want to work on a project that interests them just like everyone else.

    It was just a gig, and she has likely gone on to several more before the film was released. No one is going to say "that film failed because of the quality of he third assistant gripping."

    This though, is sadly very true.

  168. Clark  •  Jul 12, 2013 @6:32 am

    @Nat Gerler

    The third assistant grip is not a profit participant in the film, is not presumed to be involved in any sequels, and is not likely to have the emptional involvement in the film.

    @flip

    Not true. I doubt crew would work for free unless on seriously low budget films.

    All true, flip.

    Nat said "profit participant". That means "is compensated based on the profitability of the picture". This is distinct from salaried work.

    What's your basis for thinking that third assistant grips are presumed to be involved in sequels? That's a nonsensical opinion, as far as I can tell.

  169. Commenter  •  Jul 12, 2013 @6:36 am

    Nice satire, sir. Well done.

    I also presume that Mr. Card will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute and attend a couple of gay pride parades.

    Unfortunately, I guess that I am just not as evolved as either of you, because not only will I not go see his movie (too bad, because I enjoy SF) but I am informing my friends and associates of his vile (and possibly treasonous) statements.

    @bw1 Yes, yes I do. I'm surprised that you don't. Doesn't this mean that you compromise your own values if you procure goods or services from ABC or XYZ even though you object to their point of view?

  170. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @7:22 am

    "What's your basis for thinking that third assistant grips are presumed to be involved in sequels."

    The producer assembles the tech team, and they tend to like to use the same people (admittedly, the grips are at the bottom of list).
    No, they're not profit participants, but as a general rule, neither is the writer, unless her name is "Rowling".

  171. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 12, 2013 @10:21 am

    " I doubt crew would work for free unless on seriously low budget films. They will have been paid standard award rates, ensured by their union."

    Exactly, and those rates are not tied to the profits of the film. The third assistant grip does not get a cut of the gross, or the net, or the licensing. She gets her paycheck, and it's the same amount whether the film goes on to gross a billion dollars or whether it sits unreleased on the shelf. She is not a profit participant.

    "but everyone assumes that anyone else is just there to 'do a job' which is hardly true at all. Most extras and crew will have an opinion just like everyone else and will want to work on a project that interests them just like everyone else."

    But that's not an involvement in the financial success of the film, which is what is at stake with a boycott. They may, I concede, have some small interest in the creative success of the film, that they are working to fulfill a larger vision… but in my experience, no particular concern about the financial success. Third assistant grip is not likely to be in much position to pick and choose jobs based on the material (although they may based on who their immediate bosses will be.)

  172. pjcamp  •  Jul 12, 2013 @11:13 am

    Don't you feel like a fool?

  173. azteclady  •  Jul 12, 2013 @11:45 am

    I'm half way through the comments at this point, but my understanding is that OSC is one of the producers for this movie. Hence, on top of whatever he got when he originally sold the movie rights, he's currently financially invested in the success of the movie.

  174. Grifter  •  Jul 12, 2013 @12:01 pm

    @James Pollock, flip:

    The point here is that OSC certainly is getting profit from the movie (as noted: producer). And, should the movie do well, he will be paid more in order to make more films from his works.

    Whether the people associated with him know of his views? I don't care. Whether they "just couldn't pass up the opportunity"? I don't care.

    The point is that, regarding the impact my non-purchase of this movie will have, I don't care what effect it has on those who chose to associate with OSC.

    The "The Office" reference is great and all, but I wouldn't feel bad whatsoever if Dunder Mifflen went under because no one wanted to deal with the incompetent manager. Neither do I feel bad when a store in town suffers because some of their staff are incompetent. I have sympathy for the competent ones, sure, but for the situation they're in, not for my not-going-there.

    The point is just to defend the idea of not giving him more money. The folks who worked on the movie got paid already, and even if they were profit-sharing, unfortunately, thems the breaks. I'm not going to support someone I dislike just because he's hired people I'm ambivalent about.

  175. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @12:48 pm

    "point here is that OSC certainly is getting profit from the movie (as noted: producer). "
    Producers are not necessarily profit participants; most producers are not. ("Producer" is the only film credit which does not have a rigid definition of who gets a credit and who does not.)

    Wikipedia:
    "Creative producers are Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman of K/O Paper Products, with financial producers Gigi Pritzker and Linda McDonough of Odd Lot Entertainment."
    and
    "Producer Roberto Orci responded in Entertainment Weekly in March that he wasn't aware of Card's views when he took on the film adaptation: "It didn't occur to me to do background checks on anybody." He said that "the movie should be judged on its message, not the personal beliefs of the original author," who had minimal involvement in the film. He also said that "If it's on the screen, then I think it's fair game."

    "I'm not going to support someone I dislike just because he's hired people I'm ambivalent about."
    This way lies madness.
    ANY organization large enough has people you disagree with, and everyone else there CHOOSES to work with that person.

    I remain in my original position: I'm not going to see the movie because it doesn't interest me, and I'm not going to complain about anyone else's choice either, whether it's to see it or not see it… there's an argument either way and besides, it's NOMDB.

  176. Ken White  •  Jul 12, 2013 @12:57 pm

    Of all the ways this thread could have gone really fucking ridiculous, arguing over profit participation based on entertainment industry nomenclature was not one I anticipated.

  177. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @1:15 pm

    We hit all the actually relevant points already, so entertainment industry nomenclature was all that's left.

  178. Votre  •  Jul 12, 2013 @1:16 pm

    While I often am willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt, I'm even more wiling to give them enough rope so to speak.

    Sorry Mr. Card, but there's a lot of truth to the old joke that says: Time wounds all heels. And I think you're about to learn about it first hand.

  179. Wayne Borean  •  Jul 12, 2013 @1:28 pm

    Of all the ways this thread could have gone really fucking ridiculous, arguing over profit participation based on entertainment industry nomenclature was not one I anticipated.

    Look at the bright side Ken, it's been entertaining!

    Wayne

  180. Mitch  •  Jul 12, 2013 @2:29 pm

    Mr. Card states that his side should declare"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy."

    What definition is that?

    - Monogamy – So Jacob was not married to Rachel & Leah? Half of the Jewish tribes were momzers?

    - Fidelity – King David had hundreds of "concubines". King Solomon had more than 1,000.

    - For life – The Old Testament clearly describes divorce as an option.

    - For love – Arranged marriages have been the norm in most of the world for most of history.

    Orson Scott Card is IGNORANT if he believes that there is "only one definition of marriage." It is a social institution, which is shaped by the society that surrounds it. And a majority of our society has determined that gay people deserve Equal Dignity Under The Law.

    If he does not like it, he can leave. He can also agitate for change (and risk the moral opprobrium that has long visited upon those who defy society's expectations (h/t Scalia in Lawrence)). But he cannot expect me to stop pointing out that his "logic" is based in fantasy posing as history.

  181. Manatee  •  Jul 12, 2013 @2:34 pm

    Dear Orson Scott Card,

    Loved your books. Hate your personality. Despite that, I'm not going lobby for laws specifically designed to punish you for your positions or to remove you from civilized society, nor will I threaten the violent overthrow of any government that refuses to do so. That's what tolerance means.

    Unfortunately, as a matter of self-preservation, I cannot financially support your movie, and thus you and your promised violent overthrow of the government. Much as I abhor certain policies of our current government, I still prefer them over the theoretical government you and your supporters would bring–mostly because I strongly suspect that "me and my kind" would be put into camps under your regime.

    P.S. – Promising to engage in the violent overthrow of the government if they take a certain position, and then backing down and preaching tolerance when they DO take that position makes you a huge coward. Actually, there's another word that more viscerally conveys my contempt to you, but I fear that cats and those possessing lady-parts would be offended by the association.

  182. Dion starfire  •  Jul 12, 2013 @3:44 pm

    I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, Ken. While all for gay rights (less competition), I'm also huge fan of Card's work, and the Ender series in particular.

    So, I'll support Card's work as an author (at least until he starts adding in homophobic themes). If a contractor does a lousy job then fire him/her. If, on the other hand, they simply say something outside of work that you disagree with, wouldn't firing them be violating the spirit of free speech?

  183. Ken White  •  Jul 12, 2013 @3:48 pm

    spirit of free speech

    Wuts that?

    Proposition:

    It is impossible to devise a coherent theory of freedom of speech that imposes on me a legal or moral obligation to patronize an artist I disagree with.

    As for a contractor — let me tell you a little story. I was talking to a former FBI agent turned private investigator as a possible contractor on a complex financial case. He opened the second call with me with a racist joke about Obama (the "it's white and it works" one).

    Leave aside, for the moment, that he was probably a drunk, and that anyone who tells racist jokes to a potential employer probably has such bad judgment that you can't trust them with sensitive investigative tasks.

    Does the "spirit of freedom of speech" require me to hire him?

  184. Clark  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:05 pm

    @Ken White:

    It is impossible to devise a coherent theory of freedom of speech that imposes on me a legal or moral obligation to patronize an artist I disagree with.

    …says the man with a theory of freedom that imposes both a legal and moral obligation on a cake artist to patronize a client he disagrees with.

    Or, as the kids say, "lulwut?"

  185. Clark  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:07 pm

    @Manatee

    P.S. – Promising to engage in the violent overthrow of the government if they take a certain position, and then backing down and preaching tolerance when they DO take that position makes you a huge coward.

    I think this is a really good point, and after one makes such a pledge, one is -

    hang on.

    my phone's ringing.

    Holy !@#$% Ken cam scream loudly.

    Uh…never mind.

  186. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:10 pm

    "Does the "spirit of freedom of speech" require me to hire him?"
    If you've already hired him, does it require you to fire him?

    Or, to get complicated,
    If a contractor you've hired hires a subcontractor, and the subcontractor's work is already done but then he says something deeply offensive, are you required or justified in firing the contractor (and, by necessity, all the other subcontractors) over it?

    Are you encouraging people to boycott Orci's work to punish Card?

  187. Devil's Advocate  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:22 pm

    There's one glaring problem with your article that I'm surprised hasn't been covered in the more than 180 comments so far — Card's arguments against socially approved homosexual behavior aren't in the least bit framed in terms of religion. You might argue that he is religiously motivated, but his main arguments are based on sociology and, surprisingly enough, primatology, and even in the linked op-ed, which is hardly his best job of presenting his viewpoints, you'll note that he doesn't mention religion at all.

    I don't agree with his premises, but given his premises, his conclusions are rational.

  188. Ken White  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:22 pm

    says the man with a theory of freedom that imposes both a legal and moral obligation on a cake artist to patronize a client he disagrees with.

    You're a more careful reader than that. That post discussed inconsistent application ("it's wrong to make me sell to gays, but as to blacks or Jews, uh, hold on, I hear the phone ringing"), not an endorsement of the local anti-discrimination law.

    Or, to get complicated,
    If a contractor you've hired hires a subcontractor, and the subcontractor's work is already done but then he says something deeply offensive, are you required or justified in firing the contractor (and, by necessity, all the other subcontractors) over it?

    Are you encouraging people to boycott Orci's work to punish Card?

    I have no idea what you mean by "required." Nor "justified." Justified under what moral or legal system?

    I'm simply saying this: no coherent theory of free speech can be a basis to make me, a private citizen, interact with anyone I think is a dick, or put money in his pocket. No coherent system of free speech can produce the result "you hate him, but you have to go see his movie, because otherwise CENSORSHIP!"

    Also, no, I'm not encouraging anyone to boycott or punish Card, unless that's what they want to do to express themselves. I'm fighting the strange notion that their expression of free speech and freedom of association is suppression of speech.

  189. Ken White  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:25 pm

    There's one glaring problem with your article that I'm surprised hasn't been covered in the more than 180 comments so far — Card's arguments against socially approved homosexual behavior aren't in the least bit framed in terms of religion.

    What does that have to do with the strange proposition that "tolerance" requires me to go see his movie?

  190. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @4:33 pm

    "Justified under what moral or legal system?"
    "Yours" was implied, but feel free to expand to any others you find relevant.

  191. Manatee  •  Jul 12, 2013 @5:20 pm

    @Dion: the spirit of free speech, and her less attractive, but hardworking cousin, the spirit of free enterprise, both say it's up to you whether to fire the contractor, after balancing how much you disagree with the contractor, how much your business is enabling or seen as tacitly endorsing his or her position, and how great a deal you're getting on your new deck compared to other options out there. If your actions are seen as overbearing, then other free-speaking free people will respond appropriately.

    Other issues to consider: Does your contractor's position include the violent overthrow of government? If so, how likely is it that your patronage will help fund that revolution? Does your contractor's position include substantial political lobbying using his position as one of the preeminent science-fiction contractors in the community? If so, how much does the continued business you give him contribute to his reputation, which in turn helps to promote his views?

  192. Manatee  •  Jul 12, 2013 @5:32 pm

    @Devil's Advocate,

    I give Card credit for making his arguments appear based more in secular bigotry than religious bigotry. Unsurprising though, he does write for a living.

    That said, how does "based in reason" or "based in science" mean "can't possibly be bigoted or otherwise objectionable"?

    Racism has a basis in both reason and biology, from an evolutionary standpoint. If you want your genes to have the best chance to survive and to dominate, then you favor yourself over your immediate family over your distant relatives over your tribe over your ethnic group over everyone else. Aggression and violence is a biological imperative. Having not-necessarily-consensual sex with girls who are past puberty but not yet old enough to drive or vote is was rational reproductive strategy before morality became a major issue.

    That doesn't change my moral objection to all of that behavior, nor does it render people who advocate such behavior any less abhorrent to me. Hell, depending on what the arguments are exactly, I might actually respect these guys less than the guy who says "I'm a racist/serial killer/statutory rapist/regular rapist because God told me to be, and you should do it to."

  193. James Pollock  •  Jul 12, 2013 @5:53 pm

    "substantial political lobbying using his position as one of the preeminent science-fiction contractors in the community?"
    pre-eminent? By what measure?

  194. Manatee  •  Jul 12, 2013 @6:45 pm

    James,

    He did write a series of books that not only achieved critical and commercial success in its time, but has also remained popular three decades later. I can't think of many I'd rank above OSC off the top of my head, but the ones I have so far are, beyond any reasonable debate, better, so I concede that preeminent might be too strong.

    So my hypothetical contractor is actually more respected as a contractor than OSC is as a writer.

  195. whheydt  •  Jul 12, 2013 @7:29 pm

    Re: Mitch…

    Mr. Card, when discussing 'the only true form of marriage' should remember that the leaders of his religion practiced and endorsed polygamy less than 150 years ago, members in good standing of his church continued to practice is up to nearly 100 years ago, and spliter groups from his religion *still* practice polygamy.

    Then there are the billion adherents of Islam, which permits polygamy.

  196. Xtifr  •  Jul 12, 2013 @8:23 pm

    @James Pollock: "Tell me, those who plan to boycott Card's works, do you subject every single person from whom you purchase goods or services as to a political view litmus test?"

    No. In fact, it is with great reluctance that I do so in this case. It takes truly towering levels of dickitude before I am willing to allow my opinion of the artist influence my opinion of the art. I regularly buy art by people I not only disagree with, but do so vehemently, to the point where I would probably not welcome the artist in my home. For years, I have tried to ignore my distaste for Card's opinions, because I *do* like his work. But the ongoing stream of pustulence issuing forth from that gigantic dick has an odor so foul that I can no longer merely hold my nose and ignore it.

    I will boycott his movie, not out of some sense of political correctness, but out of courtesy for those who honestly want to see it. If I were watching it, and the thought of Card himself were to cross my mind, which is quite likely, there is a chance I would become physically ill, and I do not wish to subject the other patrons of the theater, who might be in the "splash zone" to unnecessary cleaning bills.

  197. Deathpony  •  Jul 12, 2013 @9:10 pm

    How odd. Am I the only one who isn't going to see the movie because I really didn't enjoy the books that much?

    I usually am a little perplexed by people who threaten the violent overthrow of a government for not enforcing their own personal or religious standards on other private citizens. Particularly as they are often the ones who react most violently against people doing the same thing from a different religious viewpoint.

    I would be interested to see OSC enthusiastically denounce anyone who chooses to boycott supporters of other viewpoints as engaging in unacceptable censorship. I expect him to man the barricades besides supporters of sharia law for the USA immediately, after all under the same principles their calls should also be tolerated, which apparently includes not censoring by choosing not to listen or put money to their enterprises. It is after all about the principle here, not the fact that blathering about freedom of speech and censorship is a crutch for OSC to avoid being socially accountable for what he says? Isnt it?

    The bit I still dont get though is this

    "Because 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."

    Now I'm married, and my wife and I have had a rocky but wonderful time together, enduring horrible stuff and amazing joy and everything in between. But neither of us can work out how anything in someone else's marriage changes ours one iota. If ours is one of the "successful" marriages that are supposed to rise up, I'd be interested to know prcisely what it is we are being asked to rise up against because I dont have a clue.

    Alternatively, maybe we are one of the marriages that should be risen up against? For, when I have asked this question of some senior religious figures in my country, I have heard a lot of strange stuff from supposedly learned men about how homosexual unions are bad, not because we hate gays oh no. Its because you know procreation must be possible, we aren't singling out gays perish the thought, and adoption is bad because well it is much better for children to be brought up by their natural parents is all, nothing about same sex parents.

    When I politely point out that my wife survived ovarian cancer so we cant have kids, and I am adpoted and seemed to go ok, they tend to stutter a lot and apologise profusely and eventually mutter words like "unnatural" and "sick" and "you know what I mean". Perhaps I should rise up against myself?

  198. flip  •  Jul 13, 2013 @3:54 am

    @Clark

    Nat said "profit participant". That means "is compensated based on the profitability of the picture". This is distinct from salaried work.

    Good point and my apologies for being a little too quick off the mark on that. Most of the people working on the film will indeed not be a profit participant.

    What's your basis for thinking that third assistant grips are presumed to be involved in sequels? That's a nonsensical opinion, as far as I can tell.

    It's an educated guess based on direct professional employment in the entertainment industry, as well as general information gleaned from working on arts-related publications. I'm not saying that it will absolutely happen, I'm saying that in my experience it's more likely than not.

    I did leave out the possibility of the fact that crews move around and like everyone else may have scheduling conflicts; and of course there's always the possibility that once was more than enough when it comes to working on some projects or with some people from the crew person's POV. There are a number of other possibilities too. But my point stands that most people will re-hire as much as possible if a good crew is found.

    And it's not at all a nonsensical opinion. When you consider that jobs in the arts aren't generally openly advertised (and especially big movies) then the chances of people being re-hired go up simply because it's easier to call the previous hires than to find a new group who might not be up to your standards. "It's not what you know but who you know" and people will refer their friends or people they trust far more than they will anyone else. So if you're the third assistant grip and you did a good job and got on well with everyone, you'll have a higher chance of being on the sequel's set than the new graduate or the guy who tends to waste time at the craft services table.

    A lot of money can be wasted (and no guaranteed profit in the arts) if you hire the wrong person (for lots of reasons) and there's a lot of trust involved in the people you hire to get the job done and done without hand-holding. People in the arts tend to re-hire because there's so much money to lose and so little profit to make that a good dependable person saves you a lot of money in the long run.

    In my particular case, I have had first hand knowledge of several jobs where the people hired were put on blacklists despite having the requisite skills but did a half-assed job or didn't bother turning up; as well as personal experience of being re-hired for both the skills that I offered but for the reliability and dedication I showed (and direct knowledge that I was replacing someone who wasn't reliable but also had the same skills – actually more job experience than I did).

    So no, nothing nonsensical about it. Just from a business point of view looking for new, reliable, skilled crew is a waste of time if you already have people who fit the bill and are available and willing to turn up.

    @Nat Gerler

    See above for my apology.

    But that's not an involvement in the financial success of the film, which is what is at stake with a boycott. They may, I concede, have some small interest in the creative success of the film, that they are working to fulfill a larger vision… but in my experience, no particular concern about the financial success.

    And what I am saying is that some people will overlook various concerns in order to complete a project they are interested in, including accepting lower pay than normal. Or on the other hand, they will find OSC's ideas and opinions horrid and avoid working on the project no matter how good the pay. – My larger point is that just assuming some low-tier crew person hasn't made some conscious choice about not/working on something is incorrect.

    Third assistant grip is not likely to be in much position to pick and choose jobs based on the material (although they may based on who their immediate bosses will be.)

    They probably have as much or as little choice as everyone else. No one turns up to do a job without knowing first what it is they're working on. In terms of knowing who their direct co-workers will be, no. But yes, they'll know what the material is, who the writer is and who the director is, and be able to turn down/accept the job based on that. You don't ever ever ever sign up to do a job and not know what the subject matter is. They may not have access to a script, but they most assuredly will have some sort of basic brief to work from. Even the lowest crew will have that.

    @Grifter

    The point here is that OSC certainly is getting profit from the movie (as noted: producer). And, should the movie do well, he will be paid more in order to make more films from his works. Whether the people associated with him know of his views? I don't care. Whether they "just couldn't pass up the opportunity"? I don't care.

    You're assuming that I disagree or agree with the boycott. I think boycotting is useful and certainly is people's rights, as much as it's his right to think what he thinks. I've never read OSC's work, never planned to, and after reading this stuff don't ever plan to.

    I'm arguing less about the issue of boycotts and who they affect and more about the initial comment that "writers don't get sci fi"… I went on a tangent obviously. I personally find the line between opinions and choosing to work on/buy an artistic project to be fascinating and wish more people thought about it. I don't think many do in the arts – it seems to be an all or nothing prospect where you're either all about saving the world and being morally superior, or all about expression for expression's sake. I also think on the scale of boycotts, few people actually do them in terms of arts-related products, unless it's something like a movie. Otherwise people shrug and say "hey, it's art".

    In fact, it's a perfect nuance to dissect on a site that discusses freedom of expression and the marketplace of ideas. Which is probably why I went on the tangent….

    I have sympathy for the competent ones, sure, but for the situation they're in, not for my not-going-there.

    I wholeheartedly agree. It's extremely probable you misunderstood my motives – I got carried away trying to dispel some misunderstandings about film makers, not necessarily to promote sympathy for the underlings over the importance of the choice of morals. I totally agree with the stance that the consideration of every person in the organisation isn't needed in order to choose how/where/when to spend based on the person's/organisation's POV.

    @Ken

    Of all the ways this thread could have gone really fucking ridiculous, arguing over profit participation based on entertainment industry nomenclature was not one I anticipated.

    LOL. My apologies! I never would have considered me being the one to totally derail a thread in a weird direction, but yes, that's what happened.

    I think I'll go look at ponies for a bit as punishment :)

  199. Clark  •  Jul 13, 2013 @4:29 am

    It's an educated guess based on direct professional employment in the entertainment industry, as well as general information gleaned from working on arts-related publications. I'm not saying that it will absolutely happen, I'm saying that in my experience it's more likely than not.

    I've not worked in Hollywood, so we're both going on assumptions. I base mine on a family member who has done paid crew work on East Coast shoots. Grips, camera assistants, etc. are all the effective equivalent of a crowd of Mexican illegals in front of a Home Depot.

    …but, again, it could be different on the west coast.

  200. flip  •  Jul 13, 2013 @6:43 am

    @Clark

    I've not worked in Hollywood, so we're both going on assumptions. I base mine on a family member who has done paid crew work on East Coast shoots. Grips, camera assistants, etc. are all the effective equivalent of a crowd of Mexican illegals in front of a Home Depot.

    …but, again, it could be different on the west coast.

    I base my 'assumptions' on actual employment. It's not a guess.

    … But then, I'm not in the USA and crew here are expected to know what they're doing and are not just picked up off the street at random simply because they put their hands up. (In the case of above mentioned person who got blacklisted – they were a volunteer with no work ethics) Enthusiasm only gets you so far when the jobs are limited and there is an overabundance of people willing to work.

    I am skeptical that your analogy is accurate, but will leave it be since I've not worked in the USA and have no first-hand experience with it.

    There's a lot more I could add but I think it's about time I stopped dragging the thread into contortions. :)

  201. Nat Gertler  •  Jul 13, 2013 @2:32 pm

    Flip: Thank you for the apology. It is a appreciated.

  202. Devil's Advocate  •  Jul 14, 2013 @10:48 am
    There's one glaring problem with your article that I'm surprised hasn't been covered in the more than 180 comments so far — Card's arguments against socially approved homosexual behavior aren't in the least bit framed in terms of religion.

    What does that have to do with the strange proposition that "tolerance" requires me to go see his movie?

    Nothing. It's just that you seem to me to be snarky but accurate, so I was surprised that you mischaracterized it to be about his personal religious beliefs when the justifications he gives for the policies he advocates are secular in nature.

  203. Manatee  •  Jul 14, 2013 @11:52 am

    @James

    Having grown up in the quasi-south, I've grown to accept a certain level of bigotry in the community, to the point that I don't go digging for it.

    In general, if it's thrown in my face, whether it's a clerk telling a racist joke in front of me, or a well-known individual using a very public podium to espouse bigoted views on gays, I will no longer send any money their way so long as I'm not hurting myself in a major way. Also, theoretically, if I can't do so (if for example it's the local electric company that's doing unacceptable racist crap), I will find some other way to punish them for their crap. By that standard, OSC isn't getting any more of my money, because I don't need to see a movie. If recent book-based movies are any indication, ignoring both the movie and the crap that comes out of the author's mouth will go a long way towards preserving what affection I have left for the book.

3 Trackbacks