A website I’m not familiar with popped up in my google news alert this morning. AfterEltonfeatures an editorial by Brent Hartinger entitled “It’s Time To Call Out Anti-Gay Author Orson Scott Card“.
The website also features a ‘how to contact Marvel Comics’ regarding Card’s involvement with both an Ender’sGame comic series and the author’s penning of an Iron Man book.
Orson has once again taken the bully-pulpit against gay marriage. This is nothing new for him. In 2004, he wrote “Homosexual “Marriage” and Civilization”, in which he offers some rather strange arguments, such as claiming that homosexuals are not barred from marriage because –
“In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husbandcan avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all. ” (emphasis mine)
or implying that the children of homosexual unions will become homosexual themselves –
“It is a demonstrated tendency — as well as the private experience of most people — that when we become parents, we immediately find ourselves acting out most of the behaviors we observed in the parent of our own sex. We have to consciously make an effort to be different from them. ”
As well as some obviously fundamentalist-inspired thinking, such as –
“But you have to be in gross denial not to know that children would almost always rather have grown up with Dad and Mom in their proper places at home.” (again emphasis mine)
And you can read the rest for yourselves wherein he describes the vast reliance society places on monogamous heterosexual relationships: (really? no one slept with anyone but their spouses prior to the year 2000?) the whole thing seems to come from some weird incarnation of medieval society where the women are locked up protected in castles while the men roam the countryside, armed to the teeth, making sure that no one else plays in their garden.
Previously, in 1990, the author wrote another piece entitled The Hypocrites of Homosexuality:
An excerpt or two…
“…The American polity defines the crime of second degree murder to allow for those whose anger was greatly provoked, as distinguished from those who coldly kill for gain. Also, we are willing to alter the terms of confinement of those whose unacceptable behavior clearly derived from mental illness. In short, we recognize the principle that those who have as little control over their own behavior as small children should be treated as compassionately — yet firmly — as we treat small children.
What we do with small children is to establish clear boundaries and offer swift but mild punishment for crossing them. As their capacity to understand and obey increases, the boundaries broaden but the consequences of crossing them become more severe.”
#
“This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity’s ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships. ”
(Quick Gertrude! Grab the kids and get in the shelter now! The neighbors are buggering each other again!)
And now Card offers this. Wherein he says such contradictory things as
” Human beings are part of a long mammalian tradition of heterosexuality. No parthenogenic test tube procedure can alter what we, by nature, are. No surgery, no hormone injections, can change X to Y or make the distinction nonexistent.
That a few individuals suffer from tragic genetic mixups does not affect the differences between genetically distinct males and females.”
(Ummm that long mammalian tradition includes a long tradition of ‘genetic mixups’ as well…)
“If property rights were utterly abolished, and you could own nothing, you would leave that society as quickly as possible — or create a new society that agreed to respect each other’s property rights and protected them from outsiders who would attempt to take away your property.”
(I’m guessing that Orson doesn’t have any truck with Creative Commons licensing then…)
“Husbands need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their wives are off limits to all other males. He has a right to trust that all his wife’s children would be his.
Wives need to have the whole society agree that when they marry, their husband is off limits to all other females. All of his protection and earning power will be devoted to her and her children, and will not be divided with other women and their children.”
(This is SO 1950s. What about her earning power being devoted to him? I get this feeling from this and the other pieces that Mr. Card exists in an Ozzie and Harriet world.)
“Faithful sexual monogamy, persistence until death, male protection and providence for wife and children, female loyalty to children and husband, and parental discretion in child-rearing.”
Yep. Ozzie and Harriet.
He concludes with –
“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.”
Now wait. Didn’t you state in one of the earlier pieces that people are expected to overcome their biological imperatives?
I won’t even address the whole BS argument about ‘activist judges’. They’re only viewed as ‘activist’ when their decisions don’t agree with the beliefs of the group calling them activist.
Card’s call to arms isn’t as bad as Hartinger makes it out to be: ‘acting towards’ destroying a government with which you disagree is not an immediate call for insurrection. But Hartinger’s piece does cast a light on this little dark corner of the SF writers tribe.
Card seems to be careful to submit this stuff in non-SF environments. No doubt some small amount of thinking went into the decision to attempt to ameliorate any negative impact such rantings might have on book sales.
I’ve got my own beef with OSC. In this particular instance, it’s probably a good thing that my issue is as petty, emotional and ridiculous as his ‘problems’ with homosexuality, gay marriage and ‘defense of the traditional Ozzie and Harriet family’ are.
MY issue is – he beat out Jack L. Chalker for the John W. Campbell Best New Author Award in 1978 (the second and last year Jack was eligible). Jack, being the good and traditional fan first and author second, didn’t believe in politiking for an award. My understanding and belief is that the same could not be said for the other contender.
I’ll readily admit that my understanding and belief is based on fannish rumor and innuendo – and that Jack was a friend of mine. I strongly believe that winning that award would have had a profound and positive effect on Jack’s career as a writer – which I will also admit is nothing more than hope and speculation. I do know that Jack felt a great sense of disappointment at not having won – not because he didn’t get the award, but because he felt he had been rejected by the very people he had been working with, friends with and given so much time and energy to.
I said it was probably a good thing that my beef was as petty and ridiculous as OSC’s, because it gives me some perspective on his invective. The difference between him and I is – until this very moment I haven’t shared my own emotional, nonsensical set of beliefs in public. I recognize that doing so accomplishes nothing at best and at worst makes one look like an idiot who has just stubbed their toe big time – hopping around, screaming invective, striking out at inanimate objects, all in a vain and futile attempt to ease the pain.
I mention my issue, not because I need a tissue, but by way of illustrating that it IS possible to restrain one’s own inherent, traditional, mammalian need to do things that are contrary to the societal imperatives of getting along. Restraint can be exhibited just as easily by keeping one’s mouth shut as it can be by keeping one’s pants on. (One can also keep one’s mouth shut even when one is pantless, but that might tend to stifle things in certain situations.)
And as we can also see, there are times when society’s right to expect a citizen to restrain their bio-imperatives needs to be restrained itself. No argument in any of those rants carries any merit whatsoever, much of it is based on religio-centric morals and societal imperatives have frequently and regularly been proven wrong and detrimental.
So now the gay community is (beginning) to call for censure of Mr. Card. (They tried it before when he was being awarded some library award for children’s lit or something.) He says they’re twisted genetic freaks, children who are incapable of controlling themselves – but if teenagers want to experiment it’s ok – and btw, I have plenty of sympathetic gay characters in my stories and some of my gay friends are still my friends.
The outspoken gays call him a fundamentalist homophobe or just a plain old homophobe.
(Drum roll) – What do you think?
I think I’m still annoyed with TAG Enterprises beating out another small shop in getting the rights to “Midnight at the Well of Souls, The SF-RPG”.
yeah, me too…
The first time I ever read anything non-fiction by Card, it was an essay supporting Intelligent Design “theory” (with all the standard pseudo-logic and weak arguments that go along with it), and I knew then that it would never be possible to respect him.
His ideas on homosexuality and marriage make it even more clear that the man is living deep within La La Land.
At least he writes some decent fiction. Outside of that, he should be quietly ignored.
I think its ironic that an author, whose books often have them of accepting those who are different, can’t accept those that are different.
(Disclaimer: I’ve only read Ender’s Game and some of the Prentice Alvin series from OSC)
I’ve known for awhile that Card is weak-sauce, but this really puts a fine point upon it. Further, he’s about to fall over into the category of “methinks he doth protest too much.”
I’ve tried many times to read Ender’s Game and never could get past the first few pages. I think I’ll stop trying. Back in the day I read the Alvin Maker series, which was ok. My favorite thing he wrote was actually Hart’s Hope.
Sue,
I agree with the Shakespearian quote aspect, but it’s too thin on the ground to make a big deal out of it.
One does have to wonder though: “ENDer’s Game”, “Buggers”, hints of childhood abuse.
Of course the standard counter to that argument is pointing out that anyone taking his position(s) on the subject is always characterized as a repressed individual.
Some folks are calling for economic protests (don’t buy his stuff), another unique approach is tp wrap everything he does into this issue by asking pointed questions at SF cons and etc.
I think he may have gone too far this time. The folks at The Stranger have picked it up and they’re the ones who former Sentator Santorum ousted. They started a neat little campaign to create a definition for ‘Santorum’ as “the the frothy mix of fecal matter and lube…”
I only recently came across Card’s article in The Mormon Times talking about how the evil homersexuals is gonna destroy democracy! I tore it to shreds on my blog today. Good to know I’m not alone. 🙂 Well done on your part, too! 🙂
not bad Chris. You actually filled in and expounded on some of the points I just touched on.
Personally, my ‘button’ issue is the ‘activist judges’ rant and you nailed it. “Hello?! McFly! That’s what they’re supposed to do!”
Great stuff.
Aw, gee whiz, thanks… *blush* Feel free to go comment on it. The article needs love. 😉
There was another game company interested in MIDNIGHT? If I ever knew that, I’ve forgotten it. AFAIK, the rights are available again.
Last year someone gave me a heads up that a copy of the MIDNIGHT game was for sale on eBay, and I bought it for our son Dave. I think that may be the only copy we have.
What I found weird about Jack’s loss of the Campbell Award is that every fan in the town I lived in at the time (State College, Pa.) was eager to vote for him, and not one of us got ballots. I’m wondering how many other East Coast fans didn’t get ballots, and if Jack would have won.
I also remember one of the nominees in a year Jack was up later fessed up and admitted he/she was ineligible due to an earlier publication but didn’t want to admit it at the time. I do wonder what kind of diligence the Worldcon committees do for the nominees.
I think winning that award would have helped Jack’s early career, but it’s to his credit that he hung in there and made a success of himself without it.
————-
I don’t pretend to understand the argument that gay marriage is going to bring down straight marriage. You want to support marriage? Get a decent social net under folks so marriages don’t fall apart arguing about money. Provide better benefits to new parents so the stress of a new baby doesn’t blow a marriage apart (which it often does because two stressed people are hard-pressed to maintain a good marriage). I can tell you from all the angst we suffered with that the gay marriage in Jack’s family affected our own marriage not a whit but dealing with his relatives over the care of Jack’s parents took its toll on us. And having a special needs child after that added to the problems in our marriage. Surely Scott, having had a sick child himself, can admit that much.
Hi Eva! Thanks for dropping by. You and I need to do a blog or something devoted to Hugo Banquets…
I remember Jack’s face in Phoenix as the award was announced – it broke my heart.
I didn’t really want to get in to the Hugo politics as it’s a potential can of worms that we’d never see the bottom of. I do know that there were questions raised before, during and after Iguanacon.
The midnight game – oy. I’d spoken to Jack on numerous occassions about developing it. I explained that we could not afford a huge licensing fee, but that we’d compensate with a higher share for him and deeper involvement by him (in terms of respecting his wishes/giving him a major say in development issues).
He agreed to give us a shot, told me he had set it up with his agent (a woman in NYC who’s name I don’t remember) and that I should call her to arrange to sign the papers.
When I called, she seemed a bit flabbergasted and basically said that she had just signed the contract – thought it was ‘with us’ (meaning my company). We eventually found out it was TAG – a fly-by-nighter that was buying rights to named projects, turning out cheap product and then quickly moving on to the next.
I called Jack, neither of us had any real explanation for what had happened and there you go.
The major reason we were interested in the rights was because Jack had filled me in on what was coming with the Well World (the wars, Mavra Chang, etc) and because the concept itself was so neatly compartmentalized into the hex-o-spheres. We also really liked what we could have done with character creation – the player wouldn’t know ‘what’ they were until waking up, and would have to self-educate – so, before you could even start campaigning, there was a solo-adventure built right in.
Besides, I really liked the potential mix of ‘magic’ and science it allowed for.
Sadly, I’m not in a position to think about doing any game design right now. I’ll keep my ear out though and see if anyone else might be – I think it would make a great basis for a social-networking site/game environment.
Back to Card. Somewhere on here is another piece that mentions some writing by Ted White that appeared in Somtow Suchartikul’s and Dan Joy’s Fanny Hill, that raises the question of where the stories came from and why editors were purchasing such (paraphrasing here) crud. Unreadable, illogical, etc.
I tried tracking Ted down to ask him some questions, but the only email I could find ended up being a dead end. He’s doing something with music reviews these days, apparently.
Before I wish you a happy thanksgiving and thank you for commenting – would you mind letting me know who is handling Jack’s literary estate? (here or in email)
And – what’s happening with Mirage Press?
And – any plans to attend Boskone this year?
Good to hear from you Eva – maybe we’ll be able to get together in the not too distant future.
Have a great thanksgiving
Hey, what a weird thing, I suddenly felt like googling around for posts like this one on Card’s hate of homosexuality, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but it feels like most of the people posting in these forums haven’t really read much of Card’s extensive library.
First let me say that I have known of his attitude towards homosexuals for a long a while and I don’t approve of it. In fact I despise racists, sexists, gay-haters and religion fanatics alike. I believe I’m a very tolerant person and I always try to stand my that belief.
That said, we have to admit that everybody has got good and bad sides. I have read a 90% of Card’s books (many of them several times), and apart from the saga about The Ships From Earth, homosexuality is not present in any of the other books as far as I can recall. In this series he does have a homosexual character who decides to do “good” and refrain from being homosexual for life to form a family with a lady who’s his best friend because they love each other so deeply. All bullshit of course.
But apart from this lapsus, I want to come out defending what I would define as his wise side. Many of his books are some of the best literature I’ve read, with very valid and high values, and che certainly shows a capacity for character and twist development that many other authors would like for themselves.
Just so you won’t set me aside as a “dumb” sci-fi reader (no offense meant to anybody) I’ll just say that I have read well above 2000 books in my life (I devour them as my mother once put it) with references ranging between Don Quixote or any of Shakeaspeare’s and Harry Potter or His Dark Materials.
My advice: don’t turn your back on the wiseness of his written word just because his head is disturbed in some ways 🙂
Good luck and good night!
Hugo
Hey, that’s a weird thing! You posted this same comment on both versions of my blog.
Hey, its a weird thing – why are you being such an apologist for a homophobe?
Wow, you read over 2000 books in your life? Wow. That’s like – not a lot. Wow.
Wiseness? Are you kidding me? Yes he won some awards – awards that I still suspect to this day were manipulated in some fashion.
But you know what? It doesn’t matter how many books he’s sold, or how many awards he’s received or how many idiot librarians continue to stock his stuff.
All you need to know about him you can get from reading his screeds – which he himself has made sure to publish in publicly available forums, hoping that his noteriety will draw people in to read that trash and gain him a wider audience for his medievalist views on society.
After having read that BS, I feel fully justified in ‘ignoring his wiseness’.
Go read book 2001.
Nope, I didn’t post this anywhere else, only here. So your blog must be stealing content from this blog.
I obviously didn’t write this post for you but for people with the capacity to see past bullshit and find something they can learn from everywhere, whether it’s black or white, christian or muslim, homosexual or heterosexual. You just seem to want to place yourself as the extreme opposite of Card’s, which makes you just as laughable. Extremes are by definition stupid, loud and ignorant.
Like I said, go ahead and hate him for the shit he’s written about homosexuality and I’ll be with you, but how are you going to critizise his books when you haven’t read one of them? Ignorant.
Hugo
Hugo,
perhaps I dismissed your post too quickly.
Nah.
I addressed Card’s non-fiction writings with my criticism – not his fiction.
If I had said that his fiction work sucks, you’d have a point (unless of course his fiction work sucks, which, if I may quote from a 1978 source, just may be the case:
“I first heard from Card when he sent me three stories a couple of years ago. His accompanying letter boasted nine story sales and a novel sale to Ben Bova. I was impressed by that only until I began to read the first story.
It was awful. It was badly conceived, badly constructed and badly written. The science in it was a joke…I tried the second. It was a story about a man who sold the aliens shit. Real human shit. They preferred it with lima beans in it…I was actually shocked. I could not understand how the author of these stories–which were in no way professional on any level–could have sold stories to Bova. Surely, I thought, he is hoaxing me…Last year Orson Scott Card won the John W. Campbell award as the best new science fiction writer of the year. At the urging of the editors of this magazine I broke my fast and read another Card story. This time I picked one which had been published…The story Baen published was less distatesful but no better written or conceived than those I rejected. It is full of bad writing of the sort which any competent copyeditor should have fixed…Why was this story published…? Could it have been that Campbell award? Is it simply that he (the purchasing editor) has been afraid to admit that the Emporer is naked? That the winner of the Campbell award was in fact the worst possible choice of all the nominees?…”
And Eva’s (Chalker’s wife) commentary from earlier regarding the awards “What I found weird about Jack’s loss of the Campbell Award is that every fan in the town I lived in at the time (State College, Pa.) was eager to vote for him, and not one of us got ballots. I’m wondering how many other East Coast fans didn’t get ballots”
And this from a critical piece – (it’s here http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/5/28/22428/7034)
“You see, I’m not very convinced that Card even wrote the books.
On the phone and in his incoherent published reply, Card repeatedly shows ignorance of what he himself purportedly wrote. I simply cannot imagine how you could write such a stunningly well crafted piece of work (inasmuch as it is wildly popular and deeply affects people) without being aware of every fibre and splinter of its composition. About the third or fourth time I heard Card say something wasn’t in his book that I knew was, I began to suspect that it was more of a committee effort.”
I’m under no obligation to read works by an author who I don’t want to read. If I had written reviews sans reading, you’d be perfectly justified in calling me out – but I haven’t done that and your attempting to make it so only means one thing: you’ve got an axe to grind. You’re tactic of claiming sympathy for those who disagree with the author’s anti-homosexual position is merely a ploy to draw people in to a recommendation to read his stuff.
I’ve been public about my reasons for not putting a dime in his pocket; those may be good or bad reasons – but it’s MY dime.
The quotes above are from Fanny Hill, from an article by Ted White, former editor of Amazing Stories and Fantastic Stories, one of the ‘big four’ magazines back in the mid-70s.
You know, I’m happy you chose to reply honestly this time, now it really feels like you are trying to prove a point instead of just discrediting me for being an avid reader.
I do actually agree in all this stuff you guys have been writing about different literary prizes being bought and sold. I don’t have a factual opinion about it because I honestly don’t know anything about all this, even though I definitely I’m on your side on this: I’m pretty skeptical myself about the way money makes or breaks a public figure. So I absolutely concede your point.
And don’t be wrong, I honestly despise Card’s homophobe attitude. My uncle is a homosexual and one of my best friends, I do in fact count a number of other homosexual people I know as friends , so I surely should know better than Card.
I understand that you wouldn’t want to give your money to somebody you despise, and respect that totally. In fact I haven’t bought a book for ages, I couldn’t afford since I read very much, but I do download a lot of material as pdf files and sometimes even use the public library.
Given that option, if you had the curiosity you could probably do it, but I won’t insist on that anymore, I think my point is made.
Thanks for making the argument interesting.
Hugo
Hugo,
that was slick – but it won’t work. My original response to you was just as honest as the follow-on.
Couple of recommendations:
the ‘some of my best friends’ argument – even when true – is weak and only brings further suspicion upon the arguer
and you might want to keep in mind that ‘the talk show host’ always wins – it’s his show…
Well, it didn’t feel like that to me 🙂 At first it just felt like you were trying to attack me. Not later.
And I’m sorry to say that when it comes to the “one of my best friends” argument, I couldn’t care less what you or anyone else has to say 🙂 It’s my uncle we’re talking about, so I don’t expect you or anyone else to have a clue about it at all 🙂
Still thanks for the argument though 🙂
Hugo
I think it was more of a discussion.
“In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husbandcan avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all. ”
Great quote. Makes a fuckton more sense than homosexual marriage which is ridiculous.
Well HELLO Mr. Evo Troll.
You are an IDIOT. Well, perhaps not entirely an idiot. Maybe you’re just someone who reads with little or no comprehension.
This is the OLD blog. There are pointers and links to the new blog all over the place.
I don’t so much mind your bigotry and wanton public displays of it (I’ve gotten used to ignoring drooling cretins over the decades), so much as the fact that I had to come here to respond.
Why don’t you go back to figuring out how to shove your head up your own ass? I know it will fit – just try working it a little harder.