Homophobia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would like to point out that personal views on a subject do feed into worldbuilding. We are crafting our own little worlds when we write fiction after all, and sharing them with the rest of humanity (and anyone else out there). So someone with views like OSC can create a world without homosexuals or treat them however he likes, overtly or not. I haven't written any gay characters yet or Mormon ones, either (though I know fine examples of real-life people who identify as both categories).
 
I suspect his views will change over the next few years as the church itself seems to be doing so. There has been, finally, a piece by the church leaders that brings them into line with others requesting understanding.

In my view it came to late and should have come during the Proposition 8 debate in California when the behaviour of some members was downright disgusting. I left the LDS church at the time and it was one of the reasons. My best friend is gay and there is no need for any human being to treat another that way.

His gay character in Songmaster isn't that bad though.
 
I read the whole of the interview, and thought you came over very well, and your position is a positive step towards influencing DC comics. Because Card''s anti-gay stance is well-known, it was a no-brainer for you (and hopefully others) to follow suit. But, and this is a difficult question for you, what are you going to do about other writers for DC comics? How will you decide, in the future, whether to take a similar stance against say, a writer who has fascist/paedophile/elitist/racist/gun lobbyist tendencies, if you don't know who they are? In taking this admirable stance, you're asking DC comics not to use Card because of his appalling beliefs, but will you ask them to vet their writers in future, to ensure no other wierdo creeps through? Isn't that leading on the slippery path to censorship? As I said, it's a difficult question, and I entirely agree with you that it's you making a point, and letting others make their own mind up, but if more retailers follow suit, DC will have to take notice. I think they were damn stupid to use Card in the first place, but they're only interested in profits, at the end of the day.

On any level, I can't agree with anything Card says, and actually, I feel pretty sorry for him, because he comes over as quite a pathetic figure, caught up in the 'rightness' of his religion, that doesn't allow him to think - he's brain-washed by his own beliefs, and whilst enjoying the freedom of the society he enjoys, he seeks to deny that very same freedom to others. He's a hypocrite, through and through.

But I like his writing. Hate the sinner, love the sins, kinda thing. One respondent talked of not giving another dollar to Card, by never buying his books again, and that's an understandable stance. I can see I'll have to steal the latest Ender book - that will punish the bookseller and Card...
 
Boneman said:
In taking this admirable stance, you're asking DC comics not to use Card because of his appalling beliefs, but will you ask them to vet their writers in future, to ensure no other wierdo creeps through? Isn't that leading on the slippery path to censorship?
Click to expand...

On the censorship issue: Just because we write something and someone decides not to publish it that does not mean that they are censoring us. It means that they are choosing not to publish us and that is their right. I don't believe in slippery slope arguements. They are predictive arguements based on incomplete data sets. Sometimes the camel is sticking its nose in the tent because the tent is on fire.

I prefer to deal with this case rather then try to suppose what I might do in a non-existent hypothetical situation. And so far this case (in my eyes) was pretty unique. We have an author that supports an organization whose sole purpose is to deny equal rights to one segment of the population. The author said that he would be donating his profits to that organization. Purchasing that book from the publisher in that circumstance was putting money directly into the coffers of an organization that I am against.

Do I think DC, Marvel or any company should have a political litmus test for employees? Absolutely not. There are conservative writers and artists out there that I enjoy and my enjoyment of their stuff is not contingent with me agreeing with their political stances.

Again, in my eyes, Card made this into a political issue by saying he was donating his profits from that book to NOM. And that made it a moral question: Do you stand up for the things that you believe when doing so inconveniences you? Or do you only stand up for the things you believe when it is convenient?

I don't think equality should ever be a 'convenience only' ideal.

"Hey Mike! Mr. Really Popular Conservative McConservative of the Westville Conservatives says that he donates to "Liberals suck" every month. Will you stop carrying their books?"

No. Because reasonable people can disagree about reasonable things. And people can support whatever organizations they want with their own money. If the hypothetical conservative tied those donations to a specific book then I would have an issue again.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

~Mike
 
MPorter said:
Purchasing that book from the publisher in that circumstance was putting money directly into the coffers of an organization that I am against.

...

Again, in my eyes, Card made this into a political issue by saying he was donating his profits from that book to NOM. And that made it a moral question: Do you stand up for the things that you believe when doing so inconveniences you? Or do you only stand up for the things you believe when it is convenient?
Click to expand...

For me, these are the key issues and I give my total support to Mike's stand on this.
 
MPorter said:
Our comic store made the decision not to carry 'Adventures of Superman' when Card was still attached to the book. Comic Alliance did a very nice interview with us here. Check it out if you like. (You can also see a picture of me with my daughter)

Cheers!

~Mike
Click to expand...

That's a great article and really sends out a positive message. Thanks for sharing.

Whatever you (one) call(s) it or however you rationalise it (i.e homophobia, etc), it's prejudice or bigotry, one way or another, and indefensible.

pH
 
One of the reasons I didn't get on with Ender's Game was the author's choice of a homophobic insult as the name of his enemy race, which gave me the creeps.
 
HareBrain said:
One of the reasons I didn't get on with Ender's Game was the author's choice of a homophobic insult as the name of his enemy race, which gave me the creeps.
Click to expand...

Can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment or not, so I'm reluctant to reply, but to a guy from Utah, well, to most anyone in the States, bugger doesn't mean what it means in the UK.

Here, when it is used, it is mostly used in this connotation (from the American Heritage):

bugger |ˈbəgər, ˈbo͝og-| vulgar slang, chiefly Brit.
noun
1 a contemptible or pitied person, typically a man.
• used as a term of affection or respect, typically grudgingly: all right, let the little buggers come in.

I'm pretty sure the author is using the connotation from the example, the begrudging respect bit. Combined with them basically being bug-like. (I almost always here it as little buggers, and usually, in reference to children or animals.)

If you're serious, which, like I said, I'm not at all certain about, it would be comparable to me disliking any English work of the 1980's for being homophobic because they use fag or faggot as slang for cigarettes.

Sorry if it was all meant to be ironic... I almost always miss irony. :eek:
 
Trouble is Card is a Latter Day Saint - having been LDS for a portion of my life his personal reaction will be to smile and thank you for the free publicity for himself, the anthology & the NOM. He'll have faced worse opposition to his beliefs over the years - he lives in North Carolina. If anything this will strengthen his resolve.

DC Comics may feel the same way. It is like the moment the churches scream blasphemy with movies or books.
 
Glisterspeck said:
bugger |ˈbəgər, ˈbo͝og-| vulgar slang, chiefly Brit.
noun
1 a contemptible or pitied person, typically a man.
• used as a term of affection or respect, typically grudgingly: all right, let the little buggers come in.
Click to expand...

That's how it's used but it means something else.

I've not read any OSC (and I wouldn't) but I did know his aliens were buggers. I just thought it was funny - and thought it was because they were bug-like, as you say, and he not knowing it meant something else. Isn't there some other American book called the Prince of Wank* or something?!

If you're serious, which, like I said, I'm not at all certain about, it would be comparable to me disliking any English work of the 1980's for being homophobic because they use fag or faggot as slang for cigarettes.
Click to expand...
Ha! Fag is cigarettes. A faggot is a really gross meat thing.


*edit Googled it: Servants of the Wankh. Which is hilarious to my ears.
 
Glisterspeck said:
Can't tell if this is a sarcastic comment or not, so I'm reluctant to reply, but to a guy from Utah, well, to most anyone in the States, bugger doesn't mean what it means in the UK.

Here, when it is used, it is mostly used in this connotation (from the American Heritage):

bugger |ˈbəgər, ˈbo͝og-| vulgar slang, chiefly Brit.
noun
1 a contemptible or pitied person, typically a man.
• used as a term of affection or respect, typically grudgingly: all right, let the little buggers come in.

I'm pretty sure the author is using the connotation from the example, the begrudging respect bit. Combined with them basically being bug-like. (I almost always here it as little buggers, and usually, in reference to children or animals.)

If you're serious, which, like I said, I'm not at all certain about, it would be comparable to me disliking any English work of the 1980's for being homophobic because they use fag or faggot as slang for cigarettes.

Sorry if it was all meant to be ironic... I almost always miss irony. :eek:
Click to expand...

I wasn't being ironic (for once). Writers from the US/UK quite often used to employ terms from the other's culture they thought wouldn't be picked up on at home, as in-jokes (eg the use of "w@nkers" on The Simpsons, something that wouldn't be used now). Given Card's politics, I suspect (but I admit, can't be sure) that this is what he was doing with buggers. For me, the name is a bit rubbish on any other level.

If a UK writer back in the seventies used the term "Fags" for a group of cigarette-shaped aliens, and I knew he didn't like homosexuality, I would suspect his motives in choosing it, sure.
 
I don't really want to be seen as defending Card, just seemed like a stretch, given that Ender's Game doesn't otherwise contain homophobic content or subtext. But it's not useful to speculate about intent.

It was a deep disappointment to me when I learned of his views. An idol slain, I suppose. Ender meant a good deal to me in jr high, and when i started writing in college, I went back to see why the character had stuck so with me, and i realized it ws my first exposure to close third. I followed OSC's writing blog after that, finding many insights, and his book, Characters and Viewpoint, has largely shaped my own style when using close third.

If the issue is monetarily supporting, indirectly, OSC's bigotry, well, that's what used bookstores are for! ;)

As an aside, would it be acceptable to buy his work (or allow DC to produce it) without his active campaigning and contributions? If he just held the views, but they didn't show up in his work as the don't with Ender, Ender's Shadow, Speaker)? Again, not defending him, but should we never watch Spartucus or Chinatown again because Polaski is a child rapist? Not listen to Micheal Jackson because he was a pedaphile? Would these guys have to be known to have given contributions to NAMBLA before we made their work taboo also?
 
Glisterspeck said:
But it's not useful to speculate about intent.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that, and if I hadn't needed to rush my second post because I was going out, I might have phrased it differently or said less.

My first post was really just to point out how the name made me feel, having previously experienced that word being used in that sense, combined with knowing his views.
 
HareBrain said:
I appreciate that, and if I hadn't needed to rush my second post because I was going out, I might have phrased it differently or said less.

My first post was really just to point out how the name made me feel, having previously experienced that word being used in that sense, combined with knowing his views.
Click to expand...

Sorry bout that, HB. The speculate about intent comment was actually directed at myself, and meant to keep myself from jumping further down the rabbit hole with the cigarette analogy.

I definitely didn't intend it as a reply to your original post, Which i thought was a thought provoking observation, and at the very least offered a different perspective and a lesson on authorial effect, regardless of intent.
 
Just read Ender's game and was immediately struck by the use of 'buggers.' At first I thought the connotations were maybe just a UK thing, but now I'm not so sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top