Why I will never again buy or read anything with Orson Scott Card's name on it.

[errant371]

http://mormontimes.com/ME_blogs.php?id=1586

I never really cared for his work in the first place, but his long slide to the far right during the past 20 or so years coupled with his popularity and influence in the genre really picks my ass.  My boycott of his work may not accomplish much, but quite frankly Card could die in a fire and I would not shed a single tear.  I will see if I can dig up a link to  the interview where he calls G.W. Bush "the greatest president in one hundred years".

Mr. Card, please remove yourself from public life and cease all writing.  You no longer deserve an audience.

[stePH]

I will see if I can dig up a link to  the interview where he calls G.W. Bush "the greatest president in one hundred years".

Wow ... just ... wow.  I know the man still has his supporters (my mother and stepfather among them) even now with his approval ratings in the crapper, but "greatest president in one hundred years"?  Shit, he makes me nostalgic for the days of Reagan or GHWB!

Actually my mother and stepfather might even agree with Mr. Card.  For myself, after reading the idiocy that you linked to above, I think I'll look for a store that'll take my copies of his books off my hands.  I'm done with him too.

[errant371]

I will see if I can dig up a link to  the interview where he calls G.W. Bush "the greatest president in one hundred years".

Wow ... just ... wow.  I know the man still has his supporters (my mother and stepfather among them) even now with his approval ratings in the crapper, but "greatest president in one hundred years"?  Shit, he makes me nostalgic for the days of Reagan or GHWB!

Actually my mother and stepfather might even agree with Mr. Card.  For myself, after reading the idiocy that you linked to above, I think I'll look for a store that'll take my copies of his books off my hands.  I'm done with him too.

Like S/F doesn't have credibility issues already, eh?

[wintermute]

I've never read any of OSC's works, and every time I hear something about him it makes me less likely to start.

[Listener]

Why let political agendas influence your appreciation of OSC's writing -- or any author's writing?

Example: 
I am a Republican and I like GW Bush.*
I love Counting Crows.  Adam Duritz is extremely liberal.
I enjoy Keith RA DeCandido.  He is a democrat.
Eddie Izzard so much as said that if you don't vote for Obama you're crazy.  I still will continue patronizing his comedy shows and buying his albums.

If you hate GW Bush, hate GW Bush.  If you dislike OSC's writing, dislike his writing.  But I always find it a poor use of the genetic fallacy (explanation) in reverse to say "I no longer like this person's writing because of his views on other things."

* Actually, I'm a libertarian, and I don't care for GW Bush.  Just making a point.

[errant371]

Card has always been open about being LDS, but this long slow slide to idiocy seems to have happened over the last several years.  He once refered to himself as a 'historically based' Mormon, not a 'religiously based' Mormon.  This has obviously changed.  The folks over at Locus are sure to have something to say about this.  They savaged him about the G.W. Bush claim.  

At a time when S/F authors and readers are by and large liberal, one wonders if Card is trying to sink his career.

[Darwinist]

Holy crap.  He freaking goes on and on.  Get over it.  If you are against gay marraige don't marry a gay person.  

I've read his blog and movie reviews on his website for a couple years now so I've always known he was right-wing and religious.  I disagree with 90% of the crap he writes.  But my kids like his books and I love to see them read, especially when we have a Wii and a 360 in the house so I'm not going to pull his stuff off our shelves.

[errant371]

Why let political agendas influence your appreciation of OSC's writing -- or any author's writing?

Example: 
I am a Republican and I like GW Bush.*
I love Counting Crows.  Adam Duritz is extremely liberal.
I enjoy Keith RA DeCandido.  He is a democrat.
Eddie Izzard so much as said that if you don't vote for Obama you're crazy.  I still will continue patronizing his comedy shows and buying his albums.

If you hate GW Bush, hate GW Bush.  If you dislike OSC's writing, dislike his writing.  But I always find it a poor use of the genetic fallacy (explanation) in reverse to say "I no longer like this person's writing because of his views on other things."

* Actually, I'm a libertarian, and I don't care for GW Bush.  Just making a point.

Why should I give money to someone whose politics I find repulsive?  Why should I support that person regardless of skill or talent?  Why would I want to read his books?  If you think that Card's politics don't show up in his work, try reading this.  Memory of Earth is nothing more than Mormon propaganda dressed up as far future S/F.

If in the free market, the only vote the consumer has is not to buy, why would you buy Card's books if, like me, you find his current attitude the worst kind of repressive?

[Russell Nash]

I loved Ender's Game.  It is what got me hooked on SF.  I didn't know that Memories of Earth was a retelling of the Book of Mormon.  I just knew it was weak.  After hearing that post-Ender his stuff just got more and more religion-based, I've decided to maybe read an Ender sequel or two, bt that will be it.  Ideally I'll borrow them from someone or buy them used.

[stePH]

Why let political agendas influence your appreciation of OSC's writing -- or any author's writing?

I'm sure I've mentioned that I enjoy L. Ron Hubbard's novels, especially Battlefield Earth.

But I make it a point to never buy a new copy of any Hubbard, because that gives money to the utterly repugnant Church of Scientology.

I'm still done with Card though.  His public displays of idiocy have irked me for the last time.  Fuck him.

[Listener]

Why let political agendas influence your appreciation of OSC's writing -- or any author's writing?

Why should I give money to someone whose politics I find repulsive?  Why should I support that person regardless of skill or talent?  Why would I want to read his books?  If you think that Card's politics don't show up in his work, try reading this.  Memory of Earth is nothing more than Mormon propaganda dressed up as far future S/F.

If in the free market, the only vote the consumer has is not to buy, why would you buy Card's books if, like me, you find his current attitude the worst kind of repressive?

Okay, I'll go with that.  What if someone gave you a copy of a new Card novel?  Would you read it?

I mentioned in the "What Are You Reading" thread that, in "Fearful Symmetry", Olivia Woods BLATANTLY draws parallels between US/Iraq and Cardassia/Bajor... and David Mack does the same in his two "A Time For" books.  I still read 'em.

[eytanz]

I find Card's politics ridiculous, and not in an amusing way.

But that's not why I don't read his books anymore. The reason I don't read his books anymore is because the last two books of his I read (I can't even remember their names) were horrible.

[errant371]

Okay, I'll go with that.  What if someone gave you a copy of a new Card novel?  Would you read it?

I mentioned in the "What Are You Reading" thread that, in "Fearful Symmetry", Olivia Woods BLATANTLY draws parallels between US/Iraq and Cardassia/Bajor... and David Mack does the same in his two "A Time For" books.  I still read 'em.

No, I would not read it.  Furthermore I would direct that person to the article I linked to.  With any luck, that person would stop buying Card as well.

I don't mind politics in my S/F, actually, although you might not believe that considering my rant against OSC.  In fact, one of my favourite authors is Ken MacLeod and they don't come more political that he.  Granted, much of my politics agrees with his, but I think I am open minded enough to enjoy opposing political view in my fiction (like Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy).  

Card, on the other hand, I find morally repugnant.

[DKT]

Why let political agendas influence your appreciation of OSC's writing -- or any author's writing?

Example: 
I am a Republican and I like GW Bush.*
I love Counting Crows.  Adam Duritz is extremely liberal.
I enjoy Keith RA DeCandido.  He is a democrat.
Eddie Izzard so much as said that if you don't vote for Obama you're crazy.  I still will continue patronizing his comedy shows and buying his albums.

If you hate GW Bush, hate GW Bush.  If you dislike OSC's writing, dislike his writing.  But I always find it a poor use of the genetic fallacy (explanation) in reverse to say "I no longer like this person's writing because of his views on other things."

* Actually, I'm a libertarian, and I don't care for GW Bush.  Just making a point.

Why should I give money to someone whose politics I find repulsive?  Why should I support that person regardless of skill or talent?  Why would I want to read his books?  If you think that Card's politics don't show up in his work, try reading this.  Memory of Earth is nothing more than Mormon propaganda dressed up as far future S/F.

If in the free market, the only vote the consumer has is not to buy, why would you buy Card's books if, like me, you find his current attitude the worst kind of repressive?

Honestly, errant371, it doesn't sound like you were really reading his books in the first place. 

Personally, I think OSC is kind of an idiot when it comes to politics.  He has written some books that rocked my world, though, including Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, and the Worthing Saga.  Will his beliefs keep me from buying his books?  Probably not.  Just like if I hear Tom Cruise's latest movie was awesome, I'll probably go see it.  Even if I think he is a loon.  The only thing that will keep me from buying Card's books are the quality of his writing.  I know his politics and beliefs at least somewhat influence his books, but as long as he writes books that read better than the Mormon Times article, I don't care. 

(I know that last point is somewhat up for debate -- honestly, I'm not sure what the last book of his I read was, but Empire sounded pretty awful to me, and I haven't heard one person say anything good about Ender's Christmas.)

Still, if he writes a kick ass book again, I'll read it.  Because that's part of what reading for me is about, getting exposed to other people's perspectives.  Even if I don't like them, hopefully I'll understand them better.

As far as Locus goes, maybe.  I know for sure John Scalzi has ranted about it some.  And I've seen it other places as well and wouldn't be surprised if it turned up on BoingBoing or something else big.  So, yeah, calling out his idealogy I'm fine with.  But I'm not going to boycott his books because I don't agree with him on this.

[sirana]

I really don't mind an author (or musician or director or actor) having a different political oppinion than me, even if it is an extreme and/or cracy one. And I don't mind giving him my money either, I am giving him my money because of his work and not his oppinions.
I listen to Hammerfall and Manowar even though they are a bunch of racist and mysogynistic assholes, because I like their music. I buy every book Steven Brust has writen even though he is one of the purest communists that I've seen. I loved "The moon is a harsh mistress" even though I think Libertarianism is stupid and I bought the "300" dvd even though it and the comic it is based on cross the line into fascist territory.
And I was blown away by Ender's game which I read even though I knew OSC's stupid religious oppinions.

My life would be poorer without these works and I would never give them up, just because I don't like the oppinions of their makers.  

[deflective]

there's something a little funny about a member of the mormon church condemning non-traditional marriages.

avoiding the work of people you disagree with seems like an unnecessary censorship. it's over the top when you retroactively include all the work they did before they became politicized. i'm not going to deny myself Ferris Bueller's day off, lethal weapon or bordello of blood because decades later actors began voicing opinions i disagree with. well, maybe bordello wouldn't be such a loss.

if you don't want to read Ender's game then there may still be a movie. although i can't see it not sucking.

[Swamp]

I have enjoyed OSC's Ender Game.  It is fantastic!  However, I haven't read the other books in the series.  I also really enjoyed the Worthing Saga.  I have read various short stories by him as well, I guess most of which I have enjoyed--not all.

I have specifically not read the Homecoming or Alvin Maker series because I had heard based so directly on Mormon history and scripture.  To me, as a Mormon, these stories would cheapen the things I hold close spiritually.  So for those stories in particular, I guess I have run my own boycott.  And personal feelings aside, it is not very creative to simply repackage another storyline.  I'm sure there are significant differences and whatnot, but whatever.  I guess I view it in the same way as the Left Behind kind of books.

Card has always been outspoken politically and in my opinion gets too riled up.  But in regards to the whole idea of not reading somebody's work simply based on how you feel about their politics, it seems a bit childish.  I get the whole vote with your pocketbook thing, but, there are libraries and such.  If a particular book has those same politics, which seems the case with Empire, then that's perfectly valid.  I see no "Mormon propoganda" (that still makes me laugh) in Ender's Game.

But, of course, nobody says you have to read anybody you don't want to.  It certainly won't be the end of the world if you don't read a word of Card's.  

I personally won't be looking up anybody's politics as stand alone criteria for reading a story or book

[errant371]

Honestly, errant371, it doesn't sound like you were really reading his books in the first place. 

Personally, I think OSC is kind of an idiot when it comes to politics.  He has written some books that rocked my world, though, including Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, and the Worthing Saga.  Will his beliefs keep me from buying his books?  Probably not.  Just like if I hear Tom Cruise's latest movie was awesome, I'll probably go see it.  Even if I think he is a loon.  The only thing that will keep me from buying Card's books are the quality of his writing.  I know his politics and beliefs at least somewhat influence his books, but as long as he writes books that read better than the Mormon Times article, I don't care. 

(I know that last point is somewhat up for debate -- honestly, I'm not sure what the last book of his I read was, but Empire sounded pretty awful to me, and I haven't heard one person say anything good about Ender's Christmas.)

Still, if he writes a kick ass book again, I'll read it.  Because that's part of what reading for me is about, getting exposed to other people's perspectives.  Even if I don't like them, hopefully I'll understand them better.

As far as Locus goes, maybe.  I know for sure John Scalzi has ranted about it some.  And I've seen it other places as well and wouldn't be surprised if it turned up on BoingBoing or something else big.  So, yeah, calling out his idealogy I'm fine with.  But I'm not going to boycott his books because I don't agree with him on this.

Actually, I have read a lot of OSC, but from back before he started spouting all the right wing and homophobic bile.  Years ago I read both The Worthing Saga (I even have a 1st Edition The Worthing Chronicle) and the first 3 Ender books and they were pretty good.  Of course I was in high school and reading everything I could get my hands on instead of studying (ahh, the '80s).  The Worthing Saga and Ender's Game are good S/F, I won't deny that.  They are well written, well conceived and raise some interesting questions about society, life, the human condition; all the things that good literature is supposed to do.  However, somewhere a long the line OSC changed: his work began to suffer, his politics became outrageous.  I won't buy his books anymore for the same reasons I am not running out and buying Anne Coulter or watching Rush Limbaugh or donating to the GOP.

If you like OSC's work, then by all means continue to read it.  I won't.  I cannot in good conscience support a man who says and believes the things he does.  Just because he has a reputation for excellent writing doesn't give him a pass.  I would rather give my money to someone who doesn't want to turn society back to the 19th Century.

[DKT]

Ah, it appears I equated how much you cared for his books with whether or not you read them.  My bad.

That said, if you feel compelled to not buy his books because of his political viewpoints and some of the things he's ranted about, more power to you.  I can totally respect that.

[Boggled Coriander]

I don't mind if an author I read has very different political views than I do.  Heck, it can be interesting to be exposed to very different points of view.

But OSC seems clumsy at arguing his case well.  (It's certainly not for a lack of practice.)  A few years ago I read a whole bunch of his opinion pieces about Gore v. Bush, the Culture Wars [tm], and related topics, and I couldn't get over how badly argued they all were.  It was as if he was conducting a class in Spotting the Logical Flaw, and he was making it as obvious as possible to make it easy for us students.

Maybe he's gotten better since then.  I really don't care enough to look.

But if Mr. Card happens to be reading this, this ought to cheer him up:  Thank you.  Your exercises in sharpening critical thinking skills made a difference in me.  Nowadays even when I read opinion pieces I agree with, I always notice when the author uses the same kind of bad thinking that YOU used.

[Windup]

I liked Ender's Game and The Lost Boys, the only two OSC books I've read, and I would probably read some of his other works, despite my profound political and cultural disagreements with him.  Just because a person is good at one thing doesn't mean they're going to be exemplary in all areas -- often the reverse.  How many great actors are also head cases in one area of their lives or another?

So, while I wouldn't support Card if he were running for the Senate, I don't see that as a reason not to buy one of his novels. 

And I agree with those who note that his reasoning in the opinion piece is pretty shoddy.  I've listened carefully to many anti-gay marriage arguments, and I have yet to hear one that identifies the mechanism though which gay marriage would harm "traditional" marriage.  Many social forces could potentially interfere with the commitment my wife and I have made, but the idea that two men or two women might use the same legal form to solemize their union just isn't one of them.  And it's pretty hard for me to see how it could be for anyone else, either.  So far, nobody has answered that question...

[wintermute]

OSC wrote The Lost Boys? I love that movie.

[Talia]

And I agree with those who note that his reasoning in the opinion piece is pretty shoddy.  I've listened carefully to many anti-gay marriage arguments, and I have yet to hear one that identifies the mechanism though which gay marriage would harm "traditional" marriage.  Many social forces could potentially interfere with the commitment my wife and I have made, but the idea that two men or two women might use the same legal form to solemize their union just isn't one of them.  And it's pretty hard for me to see how it could be for anyone else, either.  So far, nobody has answered that question...

The answer is obvious. "it just would!"

I never finished Ender's Game, personally. Long before even learning of his politics. That probably makes me a horrible genre fan.

[Windup]

OSC wrote The Lost Boys? I love that movie.

Not the same The Lost Boys as the vampire movie...

<Calling Link Bandit..>

L.B. was here.

[stePH]

And I agree with those who note that his reasoning in the opinion piece is pretty shoddy.  I've listened carefully to many anti-gay marriage arguments, and I have yet to hear one that identifies the mechanism though which gay marriage would harm "traditional" marriage.  Many social forces could potentially interfere with the commitment my wife and I have made, but the idea that two men or two women might use the same legal form to solemize their union just isn't one of them.  And it's pretty hard for me to see how it could be for anyone else, either.  So far, nobody has answered that question...

The answer is obvious. "it just would!" 

At risk of derailing the thread, there are plenty of valid arguments against gay marriage:

• Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control are not natural.
• Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cannot get legally married because the world needs more children.
• Obviously gay parents will raise gay children because straight parents only raise straight children.
• Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
• Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and it hasn't changed at all: women are property, Blacks can't marry Whites, and divorce is illegal.
• Gay marriage should be decided by the people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of minorities.
• Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are always imposed on the entire country. That's why we only have one religion in America.
• Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people makes you tall.
• Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage license.
• Children can never succeed without both male and female role models at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
• Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
• Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages will for gays & lesbians.

So suck on that, advocates of gay marriage!  You don't have a leg to stand on!