Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 52 members and 1686 guests online.
|
Editorial: It's Time to Call Out Anti-Gay Author of "Ender's Game"But despite the fact that Card is saying all these things, he sees himself as the victim. “Please remember that for the mildest of comments critical of the political agenda of homosexual activists, I have been called a ‘homophobe’ for years,” he writes. Mildest of comments? In this essay alone, he calls us liars, says that we have “sex-role dysfunctions,” and that we’re “tragic genetic mix-ups” (even as he indicates elsewhere in the essay that humans have an absolutely unalterable “long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality”). Previously, in a long history of anti-gay screeds, Card has said he supports anti-sodomy laws that would criminalize same-sex behavior (though he grants that we shouldn't all be thrown in prison and labeled sex offenders — just enough of us to set an example so that we all go into hiding, living lonely, miserable, fearful lives). If these are the “mildest of comments,” I can only imagine what more major comments might be: advocating death camps for gay people? (This isn’t a joke: Card apparently believes he isn’t anti-gay because he doesn’t advocate actual violence against gay people, as if he somehow deserves credit for this!) Supporters of Card have long argued that he isn’t a bigot — that his views are inspired by his Mormon religion and are, therefore, immune to criticism. But honestly, if this isn’t bigotry, it’s hard to imagine what is. I’ve read almost all of Card’s books, some of which are excellent and a few of which even include somewhat sympathetic portrayals of gay people. But I’ll never give another cent to this paranoid, delusional man. A few years ago, Mel Gibson gave a much-publicized anti-Semitic rant while under the influence of alcohol, and the incident received major media coverage, and many in Hollywood refused to continue their associations with him. Likewise, many bookstores refuse to carry books by Ann Coulter, because she is rightly perceived to be a hateful demagogue.
Mel Gibson, Ann Coulter Card has been saying outrageous, openly bigoted things about gays for years. But he has received little mainstream criticism, and major media players such as Marvel Comics, Warner Brothers, and Card's publisher Tom Doherty Associates continue to work with him. Earlier this year, Card was given the prestigious Margaret A. Edwards Award by the Young Adults Library Services Association for his contributions to young adult literature. As my author friend David Levithan argued at the time, would they have given the award to an author who is as openly racist or sexist as Card is homophobic? Would an author who advocates a return to South Africa's apartheid be welcome at an awards ceremony anywhere other than a meeting of the Ku Klux Klan? Orson Scott Card is a hateful, dangerous man. It’s high time more people treat him as such. For information on how to contact Marvel Comics visit our blog. Submitted by on Mon, 2008-07-28 21:43. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
none of this is really new
Card's homophobia has been a known quantity for years: he's had a blog that spewed hate speech since I was in high school. This is why, even though I've bought probably five copies of Ender's Game over the years (as well as other titles...I got sucked into the Shadow books even though they, well, sucked), I've refused to give him money. I buy his books used, and I reccomend you do the same. It's unfortunate that two of the best science fiction books ever written, Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead were written by such an asshole. It's also unfortunate how downhill his writing has gone, especially since he's taken to inserting right-wing talking points into his plots ("Bean! Save my babies, and by babies, I mean frozen blastocysts!").
My question is why you would
Because
While his dialogue isn't great, his novels - at least his early work, up till the mid-90s - is some of the best science fiction ever written. That's why.
Martin
"Who is she? Who was she? Whom does she hope to be?"
However...
... a naughty person could of course source the books from less than legal methods - and therefore provide themselves with the benefit of the story - which could also be read via pc, mobile or whatever - and depriving a not-so-nice author with the income from it.
I'm sure no one would advocate such a disgraceful act however....
My report of Card (ba dum bum): F+
I read a section of EG in high school (never finished it cause I ran out of time--it was for E.C.) and thought it was a really good book. It is sad that OSD is such a hatemongering duchbag. I will definitely not be seeing the movie version of Ender's Game. I actually hope the WB backs out of this movie, as they should not associate themselves with Card. I dont think they will though because they probably hope this movie will make $$$$. It's up to us to get the word out about the hateful things this man spews.
Michael, thanks so much for writing awesome articles like this. You totally pwned Card in this Editorial. Thanks for great brain food like this.
Now I'm gonna stop before I make a corny pun.
I think Brent wrote the editorial
... even though Michael was the one who posted it.
Thanks for this information. I don't think I've ever read one of OSC's books and I doubt I ever will, considering what a hatemonger this guy is.
trouble is...
For some reason these people don't seem to realize
That their homophobic rants have "I'm a Big Ole T Room Queen" smeared all over them. Writing about how much they hate gay people is the only way that they can fantasize about gay sex while seeming to condemn it. It's amazing how much they manage to type with only one hand.
Joshua Norton
San Francisco
So you think that all
I agree with you. I sure
I agree with you. I sure as hell don't want him on "our side". While it's undeniably true that one reaction to unwanted homosexual feelings is suppression and then homophobia, to trot that theory out whenever someone expresses anti-gay sentiments is unwise and not intellectually valid.
It doesn't matter if you want them on "your side" or not....
When people take great pains to declare what they're not, it invariably turns out to be what they are. Self-hating homosexuals are endlessly fascinating, endlessly pathetic, endlessly hoping to be caught so that the lies can end. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and when they're exposed for what they are, they have no choice but to climb own from their high horse.
----------
From the deepest desires comes the deadliest hate.
-Socrates
(PS I also know a couple of "concern trolls" when I see them.)
Generalizations
It's not wise to make sweeping generalizations about people. Words like "invariably" just aren't accurate in cases like this. Sometimes a homophobe is just a homophobe. Sometimes there's more to it. Assuming everyone who expresses anti-gay sentiments is hiding their true gayness literally makes no sense. And doesn't represent reality.
What is a "concern troll"?
BTW, I like your AE name.
I think it makes a world of sense
at least as applied to those who seem most preoccupied with homosexuality. The question must be, why focus so much attention on this particular "sin", and not another? It's quite fair to say that after a certain degree of obsession over such an issue, that it has gone from a somewhat rational concern to one which can only be described as hysterical, manaical, or phobic?
It has been proven time and again the that homophobe is repressing his own gay thoughts and feelings by mounting an excessive aversion to that which, in fact, fascinates or attracts him.
They deserve to be branded with their own iron. They certainly don't deserve to be defended.
Well, certainly no one is
Well, certainly no one is defending them in any way. But it's not intellectually or psychologically valid to go any farther than "wondering" whether they might be repressing something. No psychologist would sanction anything beyond that.
As to obsessing about a subject, there are many possible reasons. Obsession doesn't prove anything. For example, look at the entire Fred Phelps clan. His entire family, and his entire church, is obsessing about homosexuality more than virtually anyone else in the country. For some it could be related to the puritanical sex-phobia that is so common in the country. For others it could represent the most concrete example of what they see as a generalized decline of morality throughout society. For others it could be a non-thinking buy-in of the conscious decision the far right made long ago to focus on two issues: abortion and homosexuality. It could be related to a son being gay, and the father perceiving that "those people" seduced the son into the "lifestyle". Or, it could be repression of one's own feelings.
It is certainly not at all uncommon (and validated by modern psychology) for people to do exactly what you're suggesting. I'm just saying we can't "know" in individual cases exactly what is going on, and to leap to conclusions about a particular person because some people react in that way just doesn't, as I said, make sense. And I sense that in many cases the person making that claim is simply looking for an easy way to dismiss the person. Or, if I can make my own psychological presumptions, perhaps a gay person who feels marginalized by the anti-gay sentiments of another finds that it takes away the pain to co-opt the offender into one's own group. If the offender is really gay himself, then his hateful speech is invalidated.
When it's "proven", THEN say it
When it has actually been "proven", THEN say it. Otherwise all you're doing is blowing a bunch of hot air. Whoever said these homophobes are rational? And while we're at it, what exactly constitutes a "rational concern" when someone expresses homophobia?
Goodness, I've never seen a bunch so ready to rush
to defend thier sworn enemy. It seems that you all have your own personal Stockholm Syndrome - the gay-bashers are good people. The gay-defenders fighting back are sons of bitches.
Interesting.
PS I meant to scare-quote "rational concern", such as blindly reciting what it "says in the bible" with out really thinking about it.
WTF????
Emma - What the heck are you talking about??? Where has ANYONE said anything that could be construed as defending Card in ANY way? Who has said anything about Card being a "good person"? Who called you a "son of a bitch" or implied that in any way???
How is it possible to take an observation that being homophobic is not necessarily equivalent to being a repressed gay, and twist it into a defense of the person, or a contention that the homophobe is a good person? There is no logical thought process that can make that connection.
There were new studies out in the past year that showed how having strong feelings or preconceptions about things would literally change the structure of the operation of the brain in such a way that the perception of reality would be changed. That certainly seems to be what is happening here. I don't know how else to explain such a large disconnect between what is said and what is perceived.
Oh please, spare me...
You're the ones clutching your pearls and giving the impression that claiming he's probably a classic closet case is somehow an awful thing to do. All I can see is a knee-jerk rush to his defence that calling him gay is terrible. I think you're the one with an issue that needs further examination.
If you knew anything about Card's books you'd know that the relationships between his male characters are always more atmospherically evocative, tender, and passionately drawn than any between his male/female characters. Not to mention his fasination with castration.
I think that glimpse into his mind-set, along with his homophobic screeds, tells volumes more about the reality of his demons than goody-goody platitudes and psycho-babble.
Again, how does making the
Again, how does making the case that it isn't wise to assume something is true about someone you've never met equate to "defending" him? And how does that equate to calling him a "good person"? How does claiming that making a psychological assessment of someone you've never met makes you a "gay defender"? And who called you a son of a bitch?
What is so offensive about dealing in facts? If someone is a bigot does that change the concept of "facts" vs. supposition? Why is a desire to deal in facts and avoid psychoanalysis from afar a "goody-goody platitude"? Why is it necessary to try to put someone into the category of defending bigots, simply because they do want to deal in facts rather than supposition? You didn't claim that he shows signs of a classic closet case, you stated uncategorically that that's what he is. Does it not mean something that no psychologist would ever consider backing such an uncategorical diagnosis from afar?
What you call "psycho-babble" is scientifically derived studies about perceptions of reality by people locked into thought patterns and preconceptions. I didn't make it up.
The bottom line is that we both think Card is homophobic and dangerously provocative. The only difference is that I want to follow facts and psychological validity in seeing the signs of a closet case, while you want to assert that there's no doubt that he's a closet case. And for that you're willing to leap into personal attacks?
I'm not so sure what the big deal is anyway about whether he's a closet case or not. You seem to be saying that being gay is a serious indictment of his character. And that saying that he might not be gay constitutes defending him. It's ironic that saying he's gay is a big put-down, while questioning the certainty of that is a defense of him.
And lastly, what's the point of devolving into stereotype with the "clutching the pearls" comment?
Just an 'aside'...
I'm finding the exchanges between Emma Peel and Dennis Mpls very interesting to read as they both appear to be (IMHO) two completely opposite 'types' of people.
In every post I've read from Dennis (in this thread and others), he appears to write 'from the head'. His responses seem to be commonly rooted in logic over emotion and (as I see it) responses are derived from a 'scientific' approach (remove bias and focus on fact to draw a conclusion).
Emma, on the other hand, appears to derive responses primarily 'from the heart', expressing commentary based on instinct, emotion and (possibly) personal observation.
Regardless of which 'type' I tend to side with (and I'll grant you that I could be completely misinterpreting both of you), I've found your exchanges to be very stimulating and thought-provoking reading. Thank you, both.
(If you two were offered your own show, I'd watch...)
-Sibelius
"It's curtains for you, Dr. Horrible. Lacy, wafting curtains..."
I don't see anyone defending OSC here
Stockholm Syndrome? Really? Interesting indeed. Apparently in your world, anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be apologists for homophobes.
repression
I do not think that all homophobes are secretly gay; however, I do think they are repressing some kind of sexual fear and/or secret. Otherwise why would they choose to focus on this particular issue? It must have some kind of payoff for them.
When homophobes say that gay marriages threatens the institution of marriage, I think they mean that the notion of sexual freedom is threatening. Because they think they'd all run out and have sex with everyone if the modicum of religious control left in this country was abandoned. This is in spite of the fact that with the last of the Victorian sex laws gone, people can already run out and have sex with whatever adult they like, and we're not living in Caligula's Rome yet.
Men are sexual beings, as gay men well know, and when men start boasting how they're too good and holy for sex, it's only a matter of time before they get caught. And usually they're the really sick ones.
This Card is the Joker (as in Batman's Joker)
In Card we have another Hitler. If this demon ever gets power he will do what Hitler did.
There should be protests everywhere he appears for publicity and we should make it known how dangerous he is.
Michael or Brent do you know of any website associated with this creep where a barage of comments can be posted to condemn him for his homophobic attacks? Maybe by innundating his sponsor's website will make them think twice about dealing with him and he will be "shot" down before he gets started.
Live Long and Prosper
He sounds reactionary,
This is awful and I never
Cards past
A former Card fan
I discovered Card when I was in my late teens and fell in love with his writing. One of his first novels, Songbird, had a relatively sympathetic gay character - one of the first I ever read. His first collection of short stories, Unaccompanied Sonata with the original short story Enders' Game, is an astonishingly accomplished work for a young author. Another collection, Maps in the Mirror, has some of the most disturbing horror stories (or as he described the, Tales of Dread) I have ever read -- much more frightening than the majority of Stephen King's writing.
Sadly, Card's views have devolved through the years and pretty much anything he wrote after the mid-90s is unreadable. It's very sad to see someone so talented and capable of such extraordinary leaps of imagination could end up so hateful and lacking in vision.
At this point he's become the Richard Wagner of science fiction. He has a body of work that is as good as any in the history of his field, but his personal views are so abhorent that it is nearly impossible to separate him from his work. Just as I can't listen to Wagner anymore, neither can I read nor recommend Card to anyone.
not surprising...
"...and major media players such as Marvel Comics, Warner Brothers, and Card's publisher Tom Doherty Associates continue to work with him."
^ I have never heard of this man before till now....and his views don't surprise me, as neither does the fact that certain people/major studios choose to associate with him
why doesn't this surprise me? MONEY. I was just on imdb.com and Mel Gibson has like 3 movies coming up. Obviously, his rant didn't do that much damage.
From the sound of it, card is a talented man...with extreme ass views a lot of us obviously do not agree with. All I can take from people associating with him is money. Nothing else really IMO.
It'll be interesting to see what happens from here on out, but please don't be too surprised if his movie (whatever it was called) is made and lots of people go see it. That's just the weirdness and effed-upness of these big money making industries, etc. it's been proven over and over again.
“Card has said he supports anti-sodomy laws that would criminalize same-sex behavior (though he grants that we shouldn't all be thrown in prison and labeled sex offenders — just enough of us to set an example so that we all go into hiding, living lonely, miserable, fearful lives).”
^ criminalize same sex behavior? Oh, but doesn’t he know what happens in jails? someone didn't do their research. <sarcasm>
You took the words right out of my keypad, Joshua!
How long before we find Mr. Card in a "wide stance"? Or will his "masseur" write a tell-all?
There is no question whatsoever that he is advocating violence against us.
I`ve never spent a penny on
I`ve never spent a penny on his books,and never will be.If they were made into movies & TV shows,I won`t watch them.
Thank you for covering this.
Not His Only Bigotry
I read and loved Card's books in the 1980s. In the late 1980s - early 1990s I read an essay he wrote in Writer's Digest bashing gifted people. "Never make your hero smart. Nobody wants to read about smart heroes, just clever heroes." I haven't read another Card book since then.
I'm a secular homeschooler who belongs to gay-inclusive local, regional and national homeschool organizations, so I'm not sure how relevant that point is to your discussion. Then again, I've also been married 20 years and I've never figured out how relevant other people being denied marriate was to the success or failure of my own marriage.
Wow...
Card's excellent article?
Oh Marauder--give me a break. This is a complete distraction from the point at hand, but J.K. Rowling just answered a question someone asked. It wasn't a part of the story it was just a sort of subtext she thought of while writing it.
Card saying Rowling was a coward is more about his own homophobia than anything else. He was ALWAYS off the deep end.
If it was important enough
If it was important enough to be in the book, it should have been in the book. If it wasn't important enough to be in the book, she should have let people make up their own minds about whether Dumbledore was gay, straight, or shared his brother's affiliation with goats.
The relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald was hugely important to the plot of the final book, but apparently JKR didn't see fit to tell us what exactly that relationship was. Saying in the book that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were friends and then saying later that Dumbledore was actually in love with Grindelwald is as absurd as if she'd said in the book that Snape and Lily were friends and only added after publication that Snape was in love with Lily.
I'm not with Card on anything else, but I think it was cowardly of Rowling too. Does that mean now I'm a homophobe? Wow, someone should have told me sooner. If I'd known I was a homophobe, I wouldn't have wasted so much time trying to start a Gay-Straight Alliance in high school and going to Smith College and watching the movie Maurice sixteen times and seeing Brokeback Mountain twice in the theatres and watching Luke and Noah obsessively and writing a book centered around a gay romance and posting on this website.
Homophobe? Not you Marauder.
No one accused you of being a homophobe. YOUR judgement of Rowling as a coward is not homophobia, Card's is because the reason he's upset with her is that he is a homophobe, not because he wants better portrayals of gay people in literature. If she would have written it into the book he would have attacked her for trying to recruit young people. I'm proud of you for all your gay activism and movie viewing but your claims to have been called a homophobe are kind of weird.
As to Rowling, I don't think she thought it was important enough to be in the book. It was just a little subtextual idea she had. She was asked a question about whether she thought Dumbledore had ever had a relationship and she said what she had always thought may have happened. I think it would have been cool if she would have included it in the book, but she didn't. If she had I'm sure there would have been many parents who wouldn't have let their kids read the books. Calling her a coward for not including it seems reactionary to me--and in Card's case, he is a reactionary so I think I'm right.
Irony
Mormons
The LDS is quick to point out
The LDS is quick to point out that they no longer endorse polygamy. That the primary reason they stopped doing so was because it was obligatory to Utah being absorbed into the United States through any means other than military action is a whole other matter they won't go into.
Card has always hated gays. He doesn't see it as "hatred" himself. Like many bigots he just thinks that he's championing "morality" and being "unfairly" mistreated because of his values. It also pays to keep in mind that the LDS has explicitly ordered their followers to take action against the California court decision.
What I want to know is this: why is it that whenever a liberal criticizes conservative government decisions conservatives are quick to brand said liberal a "traitor"? But when conservatives speak out against things they don't like it's apparently okay.
Easy. because the
Polygamy
Marvel Comics
Besides an interest in Science Fiction, I (& Orson) share an interest in comics. He is now writing crap for Marvel Comics (Iron Man and others), which I refuse to purchase.
If you are a comics fan, you might want to write Marvel Comics to complain about their support of this bigot. His hatred of us is severe, and I don't think they realise that they have someone so openly hostile to the gay community as one of their writers.
Generally speaking, Marvel has been somewhat pro-gay.
More Marvel Comics News
Card is an active Mormon, in
My apologies
Sorry Brent for not giving proper credit to you. You and Michael both write great brain food for us. You guys should join the" Powerhouse Gay Couples Club" along with NPH and David B.; John Borrowman and Scott Gill; Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DeRossi, etc.
You mean we're not already? I am so disappointed. :-)
"There, there..."
I had no idea
The first novels I ever read were science fiction, but I had still never gotten around to Ender's Game. Now, I don't think I will. Even if I don't pay for it, I just won't be able to enjoy the material knowing the kind of person it came from. I'll make sure to avoid OSC items in the future.
End Game could be a useful book if you still have a copy.
The only people who I would like to see reading his work are the presidents of Marvel Comics, Warner Brothers, Card's publisher Tom Doherty Associates and the Young Adults Library Services Association, when I buy one of his books (used) and use it to wipe my ass and mail them the individual pages.
"Even as he indicates elsewhere in the essay that humans have an absolutely unalterable 'long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality'" That is complete fiction. If you are even a little aware of current research, (by current I mean the last 100 years), you see a mammalian (as well as avian) tradition of homosexuality. So, does this suggest that being a Mormon makes you a good science fiction writer because you were raised on science fiction rather than fact?
Card is a smart man, people like him tend to couch their public statements, I don't believe that he would condemn violence against gay people. Even mentioning it, belies any abhorrence he might have.
Hmm.
Though I don't agree with Orson Scott Card's "meanness..."
here's my $0.02
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
(John Bartlett, Familiar Quotations, Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1968, p. 409).
Oh wait I didn't make that up. Somebody ELSE's $0.02.
Bigiotry is a good thing?
Are you saying that Card's bigotry is really a good thing? That we shouldn't feel out rage at his, or anyones, hate because the more they hate us the more people will pity our sorry gay asses and evetnually they will embrace us.
How christian of you.