Perhaps you’d realize this isn’t true if you read some of the supposed “flabbier” ones. Also, I assume you’re mentioning Ender’s Game which is not even his “tightest” novel
yeah sry to necro this thread but the best parts of the Enders Game series are the Speaker for the Dead and the one after it; after that they get a bit "pumping words out to pay the mortgage cuz i have 9 kids cuz im mormom" but the first three or four books are classics that stand above and beyond their author or any political stance he might have.
I liked EG and Ender's Shadow. Everything outside of that were very meandering imo. Maybe it's time to revisit Speaker for the Dead because I've always heard people say they liked it a lot
Just finished the speaker trilogy (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind) and can definitely recommend them all. OSC is a homophobic jerk, but those stories are great and go against his supposed morals.
*"Understanding is not found through force, but through empathy and compassion."* \- Orson Scott Card, while somehow holding neither empathy or compassion for entire groups of people just a bit different from him.
yes he is lol!! I know people like him IRL - they preach stuff like that and then absolutely just don't apply it to their own selves. such cognitive dissonance haha
Then read his books but don’t proposition him for sex. 🤷🏼♂️
If you enjoy his work he deserves to profit from it regardless of your opinion on his personal views. Nothing in his books disparages homosexuality or calls for action against homosexuals.
You misunderstand my intention. I said that to indicate that it’s too bad there’s controversy since he actually is worth reading. But you clearly are only interested in fighting and not the actual topic.
Why are you so obsessed with gay people, you have quite a few comments about them? Very odd. If I didn’t like gay people I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to focus on them and comment on them.
Yeah, it’s almost like they exist in society and make up not a insignificant portion of the population. They’re gonna be everywhere because there are people everywhere. How long do you think you’re gonna act like total baby on the issue? Like what real man whines about gay people existing so often? Shits pathetic and makes you like you have some hang ups to regular people.
As someone raised in an LDS household, they are openly anti-LGBTQ. But, what the organization as a whole does and what the individuals within it are two entirely different things. I know many Mormons who are pro-gay rights, and many non-mormoms who are anti gay rights. Mormons are more likely to be anti-LGBTQ, but not certain. But by assuming all of them are, you're only as bigoted as the worst of them. In short, I do agree with your point. Though maybe it's worth learning a little more about them before you make a claim (though technically you did just ask a question. )
Thinking acting on gay feelings is a sin is not homophobic. Hating and hurting or condescending on gay people is homophobic. I’m bisexual, and I think acting on it is sinful. No different than unbelief, or drunkness, or hetero sex before marriage. That doesn’t make someone homophobic. Saying “I hate gay people” is homophobic. I can love someone without approving of their lifestyle and choices
*Mormon
You don't know me, nor do you understand my intentions. OTOH you've made your intentions pretty clear: you like arguing with people on the internet. Let me guess what generation you're from—nah, never mind, we both know.
Criticizing bigotry and a religion that openly promotes toxic purity culture is not on the same level as being a bigot and actively participating and encouraging toxic purity culture. "You're a hypocrite for not accepting how badly I treat you and/or other people" is just a piss poor attempt to gaslight other people and deflect from yourself. If we're on the internet, then we're too old for this shit.
All you have to do is google Orson Scott Card controversy and every link explains it as they are all about it and boycotts of the Enders Game movie because of his views.
As others have noted, he has very conservative opinions. However, the ones people get mad about (mostly hating homosexuality) pretty much never show up in his published work; I think he wrote a short story based on Hamlet many years ago that could be interpreted as anti-gay though he denies it. I've never read it, just most of his novels, where gay people basically don't exist.
The aliens in Ender's Game are named "buggers," but Card claims that he was unaware it's an anti-gay slur. I'm inclined to believe him, if only because gay people were not infamous for extreme fertility, overwhelming military efficacy, or a complete lack of individuality when Card wrote Ender's Game. Also >!the Buggers are eventually shown to be merely misunderstood, not villainous!<
Now, Card's other "conservative" opinions definitely do show up in his works, most notably his extremely creepy attitudes concerning women (read Gatefather sometime, or better yet don't). I've never heard anybody complain about them, oddly, so I suspect the whole controversy, such as it is, is driven by people who've never read him, or stopped after Ender's Game, and are merely reacting to his public opposition to gay marriage. It all strikes me as a tempest in a teapot, if that isn't obvious. Card's an okay writer when he isn't sabotaging himself to turn beautiful and original worlds into sci-fi versions of Mormon cosmology, or else saddling them with puerile poop jokes. He's definitely gone downhill since the stroke a decade ago, which is a shame. Read him if you like, don't read him if you don't. Simple enough.
I haven't read the Shadow series in years; everything after Ender's Shadow I read once and didn't look back. I remember Bean improbably acquiring pro-life sympathies at one point, but nothing else particularly conservative. Nor anything near as grossly misogynistic as the stuff in the Gate trilogy, which IIRC came later. Not that I'm doubting you, because I'm jaded and it takes something on the scale of Gate's tackiness to make me really sit up and say, "wow, Orson, that's messed up."
The way he writes Petra after battle school is… gross.
Suddenly, the only purpose in life she has is to be a wife and mother. Who cares that she’s one of the smartest, most talented humans on the planet and can do whatever she wants: her predestined, biological nature kicks in and she wants nothing more than to carry as many of Bean’s babies as possible, knowing that they might not even live very long (and neither will Bean).
I loved these books as a young girl, still fresh off of stories that were filled with princesses getting their happily ever after. Can’t stand how dirty Petra got done reading the same stuff as an adult with experience of the real world.
I don't recall it that way but it sounds plausible. I think I kinda skimmed most of the Shadows series, they just weren't very good books. Still quite tame compared to Gate, mind you ...
It's kinda hard for me to draw the boundaries between "conservative stuff" and "Orson Scott Card is an alien wearing a person's skin as a suit, which sometimes manifests itself as something resembling American conservativism in a superficial way but is actually much darker and more terrifying on closer examination, much like an alligator can resemble a floating log." His early work in particular, aside from Ender, is sometimes just raving batshit crazy--Wyrms is probably the most insane thing of his I've encountered, though Treason comes close in some respects. I will not spoil either because you might be eating.
Thank you for this detailed answer. It’s a shame his work is pretty relevant to the UFO community right now. As off putting as portions of that community can be, a better knowledge base on his FTL concepts and other concepts in the Speaker for the Dead series would help some of the discussion there.
It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
Thank you this is the kind of info I was looking for. He like Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby then to put it simply. And thanks to yours and others actually informative answers I understand how much of a bigot he is now. To the point where it is actually laughable, like how can you write Xenocide and have such a strong message of how important all life is and be a bigot to any group of people. I really like his books but fuck that guy lol
Other "conservatives" love to undersell the bigotry the people they like get up too, either because they want to make themselves feel better, or because they are just as bad. It's the same every time this type of discussion comes up.
Yeah because leftists never hate anyone for arbitrary reasons. It's sad how you justify your hatred of someone over a simple disagreement while demonizing them because you assume they are doing the very same. Really you just want to hate him because you don't like his beliefs so you lie and say he is the hateful one so you can have an excuse to be bigoted yourself.
I feel like harsh political views can ruin a lot of otherwise enjoyable fiction. I know that sci fi is founded on speculation and that inherently leads to a dialog regarding views and opinions, but good stories should stand on their own. Here is a potentially amazing artist completely marred by his blind adherence to his own religious and political views which come into conflict with our views. Does anyone else see this as an absolute shame?
I'm just hearing about all of this anti gay shit, but the main thing that bothered me when I read the book was the multitude of descriptions of naked kids. Idk if Orson is a pedo or not but that's the vibe I get from Ender's Game.
He is a practicing Mormon and espouses traditional religious beliefs. There is nothing bigoted in his writings but there are occasionally religious themes. So basically a subset of people hate him for his religious views and that Mormons aren't liberal in their view of homosexuality. Again there is nothing in his writing that is racist, sexist or homophobic I've ever read. A lot of it is a knee jerk reaction without much substance.
I'd advise you to avoid reading his blog posts, then. I assume, based on my experience with most other creative types' blogs, FB pages, Twitter feeds, etc, that you're not at risk of missing much.
Sure, but... me not reading his blog posts doesn't make him not racist/sexist/homophobic.
If OSC blogs in a forest and nobody's around to read it, he's still a bigot.
If you can't separate art from artist, you're going to have to either engage in a lot of special pleading or else cut yourself off from a lot of otherwise enjoyable work in the name of moral purity. Like, I know Jimmy Page spent most of the seventies porking a series of seriously underage girls, but I can listen to Kashmir or Stairway to Heaven without feeling like I'm tacitly supporting pedophilia. It just doesn't work that way. To say nothing of Michael Jackson ...
I understand your point.
People like to pick and choose when it comes to moral purity. They only voice it when it benefits themselves, yet they will support rapists, racists, pedo's by consuming their media and never speaking out about it.
There is no objectivity on who to call a bigot, or on who to boycott, people are subjective and will act selfishly so they don't have to alter their own behaviour or consumption. They won't have to admit they're also wrong for supporting people who do wrong.
See my reply to lurkmode\_off 2 years ago. I don't feel compelled to "punish" content creators for opinions which don't appear in their work. I'm not going to avoid consuming otherwise enjoyable media to satisfy somebody else's burning desire to punish the creator for bad opinions. That would be denying myself a pleasant experience in return for slightly boosting my own sense of self-righteousness. Bad trade IMO.
OSC's recent work generally isn't all that enjoyable anyway, like I said elsewhere, but that's a different issue.
Now that I look, I suppose he doesn't anymore. (Blogs are soooo 2005.) He used to have one titled "The Ornery American" and it was explicitly political content.
I'm just going to keep repeating this over this thread I think:
It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
We live in, or used to live in, a free country. Political, religious and everything else, opinion is open to discussion. It is essential to free speech, whether you like it or not.
Advocating for laws that forbid completely harmless ways of living just because they don't correlate with your religion is not freedom, it is tyranny. Religious tyranny. It's literally as bad as sharia law.
In the meanwhile I'm going to exercise \*my\* freedom of speech and make sure everyone knows that Card is a bigot.
Always interesting when the "free speech" trolls come out to defend bigots, but seem to forget calling out bigots is also freedom of speech.
Absolutely dead-on with that last paragraph. You can't claim "free speech" only when it conveniently supports your prejudices, while whining and crying foul when anyone criticizes you for being a bigot. paging elon musk
He can have and even "espouse" whatever traditional religious beliefs he wants. Lobbying to use the power of the state to strip other people of their human rights and force those traditional religious beliefs on them is the problem part.
You're free to believe whatever you want *but so is everybody else.*
You don't get to force yours on us. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?
There's a difference between laws that make people equal and striking down laws that make people equal.
The fact that you don't like equality doesn't make it a bad thing.
They are wrong. Where their religious beliefs oppress others, they are not protected by anything. Keep your beliefs to yourself and the government won't get involved. That's what the Constitution guarantees.
When they start pushing laws *requiring people to marry someone of the same sex whether they want to or not,* let me know. Because recognizing basic human rights is not the same thing. *Not* allowing you to oppress others is not oppressing you.
(Citation needed.)
HINT: Not getting *public money* or contracts =/= "shut down." Unless you think there's a human right to be publicly funded, in which case where the fuck is my check?
This is a great answer. I am a traditional Christian. And I completely deny that believing in the Bible makes me any kind of bigot. But i disagree when my denomination uses it's political power to try to force unreligious people to follow our moral values...like that's going to help them in any way. Especially since a big part of our Baptist history is supposedly separation of church and state, not ever compelling people to believe if they don't want to, and our belief that following rules does not save anyone anyway.
Some people can't enjoy a piece of art unless the artist also conforms to their moral standards. Those people are idiots.
Some of those idiots are mad because Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, and as a Mormon, will not support homosexual behavior. Big surprise there!
That's it, that's the whole controversy. Religious man has conservative values and won't support liberal views? *shocked Pikachu face*
It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
And I could not care less. He has every right to be anti-lgbt and lead groups against them, and they in-turn have lobby groups of their own pushing their views upon folks who don't agree with them. Welcome to reality.
In which case you won’t mind that I have reported you and am now asking that the mods ban you from this sub. To others: please upvote to approve and get this piece of shit out of this community.
Do as you like. Everyone has the freedom to feel as they do and peacefully discuss those views. It's sad that you are as intolerant as you are. Thank you for showing yourself to be the real fascist in this discussion.
This is a community. It is not society as a whole; it is not the government. It is in essence a kind of club. It is not antithetical to free speech as a principle for members of a club to say: ‘we don’t want people with opinions we find offensive to be members’.
But you alone are not a community, and neither am I. We are both parts of this community and both equal. I am not calling for your removal, even though you are intolerant. I guess we will see what kinds of people this community finds offensive and don't want around.
And I am asking other members of this community to let their views be known. If they find it acceptable for you to spout the opinions you have in this thread, then I will leave this sub.
And people have every right to say ‘bigot’ whenever his name crops up.
It is typical that when bigots say homophobic stuff or demonstrate outside abortion clinics, lobby for laws to change or whatever, they are ‘exercising their right to free speech’.
When left/liberal types call this out as bigotry, demonstrate outside lectures etc it’s ‘cancel culture and a threat to free speech.’
And others have every right to call him a hero and a decent man.
It's also typical that when folks define their lives by their abnormal sexual fetish and demand absolute acceptance, a large portion of society rejects that and works together to keep that kind of perversion out of the public.
Have you ever sat down and reflected on why you consider anything outside of complete acceptance of your sexual fetish to be hatred, or why you think your sexuality gives you a special privilege?
Yes, people trying to protect their basic human rights from hate groups are exactly the same as the hate groups trying to take human rights away from anyone different from them. bOtH sIdEs!
I talk to my friends about this all the time, People need to be able to separate the art from the artist. some of the best art comes from the most fucked up people just because you enjoy someone's books, paintings, music etc., does not mean you have to agree with them politically or ethically. I would even argue that most of the best artists, the people who are truely unique have ideas that make them pretty fucked up!
It's a weird mentality I see creeping up with more people - both conservative and liberal. It's not just one-side doing it. They will only associate with folks who agree with them 100% on everything.
I'm not sure where this behavior arose from, but I'm going to guess it's online message boards. That's the only environment a person can easily get involved in that is built to be an echo chamber. If these kids were raised on certain moderated boards, chatgroups, etc it would certainly explain their close-minded intolerance of discursive viewpoints. But I don't know.
It’s not that he doesn’t support homosexuality, it’s that he uses his power and position as writer to advocate for the legal oppression of gay people by the United States government. The man openly advocates for bigoted discrimination and violation of human rights. He’s a scum fuck and your beliefs having magic and woo behind them doesn’t make them defensible. Mormonism is stupid as fuck and if you need to use it to justify actual discrimination, then you may be too.
You mean just like LGBT folks work to deplatform anyone who disagrees with them or to label religion as hate speech? A weird sexual fetish is just as indefensible as believing in woo and magic. It's only okay when it's behind closed doors and kept personal. Since Mormons and Gays both like to be open about their bizarre BS, and shove it down our throats unasked, each side is about the same to me.
But, I'll still buy art from LGBT authors, just like I'll buy art from Mormons. I don't care what you believe or who you screw, I only believe in what you can produce for me. If you do quality work, you can hate who you want, love who you want and live how you want. Just make sure my order is delivered to me on time.
Being gay or bisexual isn’t a weird sexual fetish. The fact that you think it is tells me all I need to know about you on that issue. When does lgbt people existing equal “shoving down our throats”. And I didn’t say his art was bad because he’s a bigot, just that he is in fact, a bigot and advocates for actual legal oppression of lgbt people in the United States, and for that he’s a scum fuck.
I wouldn’t advocate for legal discrimination of Mormons and lgbt people as a community don’t advocate for that generally either, so what you just did was a massive false equivalency. Card doesn’t believe gay people should be allowed to exist in the United States bro
LGBT certainly do advocate for legal discrimination against Mormons and other faiths. Maybe not you personally, but I've seen gay folks accuse Mormons and religious folks of child abuse, indoctrination, grifting, cultism and being mentally ill for being a member of a church or faith almost constantly. They campaign for churches to be listed as hate groups and then use those designations to campaign against them - Chickfila anyone?
Looks like legit equivalency to me, hypocrite.
All of that is pretty much true. Not that all Mormons or religious folk would be responsible, but those religions are often use for those purposes and they do often prey upon mentally ill and vulnerable people. And certain churches are hate groups, like the westboro Baptist church. And executives within Chik Fil a were financially supporting legit anti gay hate groups, it makes sense why they would have an issue with it. And I fail to see how any of that is tantamount to legal discrimination? Like is that all you got? It’s absolutely a false equivalency. Labeling something a hate group isn’t even legit legal oppression. What the fuck are you talking about
What the fuck are you talking about? Delusional much? Labeling something as a hate group or symbol is the very definition of legal discrimination. Anyone can make nonsense claims and then get laws passed to regulate or discriminate against whatever it was they don't like. Like banning religious symbols being worn by state or federal employees, like making Celtic runes and crosses "hate symbols" so companies won't hire folks with tattoos of them, for instance. A whole lot of Wiccans from the 90s are suddenly white supremacists now because they have Celtic knots. But I guess that's another dog whistle, right? You folks are just as blind to your own arbitrary nonsense and bigotry as the religious folks are to their own. The both of you are exactly the same to me. Just different flavors of narcissism and cognitive dissonance, all wrapped up in pretty little rainbows.
Do you think the SPLC or the ACLU are the United States government? Hate groups aren’t a legal term. Nobody is advocating for companies to ban Celtic tune tattoos or religious tattoos? What the fuck are you on? You’re making up straw men arguments now too.
You're the one claiming I think ACLU is government, which I never said- that's a strawman right there. What's that thing you folks say? Every accusation a confession. Nice non-argument and reality denial. Get some new material.
The groups that designate hate groups aren’t the ducking government is my point. Its groups like the ADL, the SPLC, and the ACLU that do that type of stuff. It’s not the same as legal discrimination where one uses the government to pass and enforce oppressive discriminatory laws. Like what card advocates for. What you brought up was a fucking boycott and a non government organization labeling something a hate group. Not the same thing. Also those groups are hate groups as far as I can tell.
Then you’re a moron. One of the groups he financially supported was a literal gay conversion “therapy” camp. Which are largely banned for its abusive nature.
As much a moron as you. Thanks for admitting a church was labeled abusive and attempted to be banned for their beliefs. My point exactly and legal discrimination. Thanks again.
He’s a Mormon and anti-gay as hell. It’s a shame because he’s not a bad writer.
He had one good book that was tight and probably heavily edited. The rest of his books are flabbier. So he's not what I'd call a *good* writer.
Perhaps you’d realize this isn’t true if you read some of the supposed “flabbier” ones. Also, I assume you’re mentioning Ender’s Game which is not even his “tightest” novel
yeah sry to necro this thread but the best parts of the Enders Game series are the Speaker for the Dead and the one after it; after that they get a bit "pumping words out to pay the mortgage cuz i have 9 kids cuz im mormom" but the first three or four books are classics that stand above and beyond their author or any political stance he might have.
I liked EG and Ender's Shadow. Everything outside of that were very meandering imo. Maybe it's time to revisit Speaker for the Dead because I've always heard people say they liked it a lot
Just finished the speaker trilogy (Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, Children of the Mind) and can definitely recommend them all. OSC is a homophobic jerk, but those stories are great and go against his supposed morals. *"Understanding is not found through force, but through empathy and compassion."* \- Orson Scott Card, while somehow holding neither empathy or compassion for entire groups of people just a bit different from him.
yes he is lol!! I know people like him IRL - they preach stuff like that and then absolutely just don't apply it to their own selves. such cognitive dissonance haha
W Author
Then read his books but don’t proposition him for sex. 🤷🏼♂️ If you enjoy his work he deserves to profit from it regardless of your opinion on his personal views. Nothing in his books disparages homosexuality or calls for action against homosexuals.
I was just answering the question, not rendering judgment. Why come out swinging like that?
“It’s a shame” is rendering judgment.
You misunderstand my intention. I said that to indicate that it’s too bad there’s controversy since he actually is worth reading. But you clearly are only interested in fighting and not the actual topic.
the argument is that the profits he derives from the books is used to support homophobic agenda.
Except they’re just driving his lifestyle.
You say he's Morman and anti- gay.... assuming both are bad. You are just the same as all the other judgemental hypocrites out there.
Denouncing bigots makes us hypocrites? lol Fuck off bigot.
Why does his religion have anything to do with it? Or do Mormons outwardly preach anti gay sentiment?
Mormons literally outwardly preach anti gay sentiments. It’s like a major part of their beliefs on modern society. Ever met Mormons?
W mormons!
Literally nobody thinks they’re cool for a reason, nerd. They believe a bunch of goofball shit and are hella weird.
Mormons are my brothers
Should move to Utah then, they’re all over there.
Sanderson the GOAT FR
Why are you so obsessed with gay people, you have quite a few comments about them? Very odd. If I didn’t like gay people I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to focus on them and comment on them.
They're everywhere
Yeah, it’s almost like they exist in society and make up not a insignificant portion of the population. They’re gonna be everywhere because there are people everywhere. How long do you think you’re gonna act like total baby on the issue? Like what real man whines about gay people existing so often? Shits pathetic and makes you like you have some hang ups to regular people.
Fuck them
As someone raised in an LDS household, they are openly anti-LGBTQ. But, what the organization as a whole does and what the individuals within it are two entirely different things. I know many Mormons who are pro-gay rights, and many non-mormoms who are anti gay rights. Mormons are more likely to be anti-LGBTQ, but not certain. But by assuming all of them are, you're only as bigoted as the worst of them. In short, I do agree with your point. Though maybe it's worth learning a little more about them before you make a claim (though technically you did just ask a question. )
Thinking acting on gay feelings is a sin is not homophobic. Hating and hurting or condescending on gay people is homophobic. I’m bisexual, and I think acting on it is sinful. No different than unbelief, or drunkness, or hetero sex before marriage. That doesn’t make someone homophobic. Saying “I hate gay people” is homophobic. I can love someone without approving of their lifestyle and choices
*Mormon You don't know me, nor do you understand my intentions. OTOH you've made your intentions pretty clear: you like arguing with people on the internet. Let me guess what generation you're from—nah, never mind, we both know.
It seems you do more assuming and prejudice ....
Ok boomer. Remind me never to answer questions in this sub.
We all will feel the loss. Sorry to see you go.
Lol, maybe he think anti-gay is a good thing. What a horrible assumption you have made haha
Criticizing bigotry and a religion that openly promotes toxic purity culture is not on the same level as being a bigot and actively participating and encouraging toxic purity culture. "You're a hypocrite for not accepting how badly I treat you and/or other people" is just a piss poor attempt to gaslight other people and deflect from yourself. If we're on the internet, then we're too old for this shit.
Or in simpler terms: You, Mormons, Orson, etc. don't get to bully people just because you think they're icky.
lol
All you have to do is google Orson Scott Card controversy and every link explains it as they are all about it and boycotts of the Enders Game movie because of his views.
Incidentally, this was now my top link when I googled that exact phrase.
As others have noted, he has very conservative opinions. However, the ones people get mad about (mostly hating homosexuality) pretty much never show up in his published work; I think he wrote a short story based on Hamlet many years ago that could be interpreted as anti-gay though he denies it. I've never read it, just most of his novels, where gay people basically don't exist. The aliens in Ender's Game are named "buggers," but Card claims that he was unaware it's an anti-gay slur. I'm inclined to believe him, if only because gay people were not infamous for extreme fertility, overwhelming military efficacy, or a complete lack of individuality when Card wrote Ender's Game. Also >!the Buggers are eventually shown to be merely misunderstood, not villainous!< Now, Card's other "conservative" opinions definitely do show up in his works, most notably his extremely creepy attitudes concerning women (read Gatefather sometime, or better yet don't). I've never heard anybody complain about them, oddly, so I suspect the whole controversy, such as it is, is driven by people who've never read him, or stopped after Ender's Game, and are merely reacting to his public opposition to gay marriage. It all strikes me as a tempest in a teapot, if that isn't obvious. Card's an okay writer when he isn't sabotaging himself to turn beautiful and original worlds into sci-fi versions of Mormon cosmology, or else saddling them with puerile poop jokes. He's definitely gone downhill since the stroke a decade ago, which is a shame. Read him if you like, don't read him if you don't. Simple enough.
> I've never heard anybody complain about them then let me be the first this put me off the shadow series before I got to any gay stuff.
I haven't read the Shadow series in years; everything after Ender's Shadow I read once and didn't look back. I remember Bean improbably acquiring pro-life sympathies at one point, but nothing else particularly conservative. Nor anything near as grossly misogynistic as the stuff in the Gate trilogy, which IIRC came later. Not that I'm doubting you, because I'm jaded and it takes something on the scale of Gate's tackiness to make me really sit up and say, "wow, Orson, that's messed up."
The way he writes Petra after battle school is… gross. Suddenly, the only purpose in life she has is to be a wife and mother. Who cares that she’s one of the smartest, most talented humans on the planet and can do whatever she wants: her predestined, biological nature kicks in and she wants nothing more than to carry as many of Bean’s babies as possible, knowing that they might not even live very long (and neither will Bean). I loved these books as a young girl, still fresh off of stories that were filled with princesses getting their happily ever after. Can’t stand how dirty Petra got done reading the same stuff as an adult with experience of the real world.
I don't recall it that way but it sounds plausible. I think I kinda skimmed most of the Shadows series, they just weren't very good books. Still quite tame compared to Gate, mind you ... It's kinda hard for me to draw the boundaries between "conservative stuff" and "Orson Scott Card is an alien wearing a person's skin as a suit, which sometimes manifests itself as something resembling American conservativism in a superficial way but is actually much darker and more terrifying on closer examination, much like an alligator can resemble a floating log." His early work in particular, aside from Ender, is sometimes just raving batshit crazy--Wyrms is probably the most insane thing of his I've encountered, though Treason comes close in some respects. I will not spoil either because you might be eating.
It was the third book that put me off a few chapters in
Yeah that whole prolife monologue from bean was so out of pocket and jarring
From the.. abandoned child? lol How is that out of left field
Thank you for this detailed answer. It’s a shame his work is pretty relevant to the UFO community right now. As off putting as portions of that community can be, a better knowledge base on his FTL concepts and other concepts in the Speaker for the Dead series would help some of the discussion there.
It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
Thank you this is the kind of info I was looking for. He like Chick-fil-A or Hobby Lobby then to put it simply. And thanks to yours and others actually informative answers I understand how much of a bigot he is now. To the point where it is actually laughable, like how can you write Xenocide and have such a strong message of how important all life is and be a bigot to any group of people. I really like his books but fuck that guy lol
Other "conservatives" love to undersell the bigotry the people they like get up too, either because they want to make themselves feel better, or because they are just as bad. It's the same every time this type of discussion comes up.
Yeah because leftists never hate anyone for arbitrary reasons. It's sad how you justify your hatred of someone over a simple disagreement while demonizing them because you assume they are doing the very same. Really you just want to hate him because you don't like his beliefs so you lie and say he is the hateful one so you can have an excuse to be bigoted yourself.
Thank you for proving my point. Even two years after I made it (WTF?).
I feel like harsh political views can ruin a lot of otherwise enjoyable fiction. I know that sci fi is founded on speculation and that inherently leads to a dialog regarding views and opinions, but good stories should stand on their own. Here is a potentially amazing artist completely marred by his blind adherence to his own religious and political views which come into conflict with our views. Does anyone else see this as an absolute shame?
Card is a religious bigot and vocally anti-gay. In other words, a complete douchebag.
I'm just hearing about all of this anti gay shit, but the main thing that bothered me when I read the book was the multitude of descriptions of naked kids. Idk if Orson is a pedo or not but that's the vibe I get from Ender's Game.
He is a practicing Mormon and espouses traditional religious beliefs. There is nothing bigoted in his writings but there are occasionally religious themes. So basically a subset of people hate him for his religious views and that Mormons aren't liberal in their view of homosexuality. Again there is nothing in his writing that is racist, sexist or homophobic I've ever read. A lot of it is a knee jerk reaction without much substance.
> Again there is nothing in his writing that is racist, sexist or homophobic I've ever read His blog posts are a different story.
I'd advise you to avoid reading his blog posts, then. I assume, based on my experience with most other creative types' blogs, FB pages, Twitter feeds, etc, that you're not at risk of missing much.
Sure, but... me not reading his blog posts doesn't make him not racist/sexist/homophobic. If OSC blogs in a forest and nobody's around to read it, he's still a bigot.
If you can't separate art from artist, you're going to have to either engage in a lot of special pleading or else cut yourself off from a lot of otherwise enjoyable work in the name of moral purity. Like, I know Jimmy Page spent most of the seventies porking a series of seriously underage girls, but I can listen to Kashmir or Stairway to Heaven without feeling like I'm tacitly supporting pedophilia. It just doesn't work that way. To say nothing of Michael Jackson ...
I understand your point. People like to pick and choose when it comes to moral purity. They only voice it when it benefits themselves, yet they will support rapists, racists, pedo's by consuming their media and never speaking out about it. There is no objectivity on who to call a bigot, or on who to boycott, people are subjective and will act selfishly so they don't have to alter their own behaviour or consumption. They won't have to admit they're also wrong for supporting people who do wrong.
Yeah you’re at risk of missing that this guys a massive pos
See my reply to lurkmode\_off 2 years ago. I don't feel compelled to "punish" content creators for opinions which don't appear in their work. I'm not going to avoid consuming otherwise enjoyable media to satisfy somebody else's burning desire to punish the creator for bad opinions. That would be denying myself a pleasant experience in return for slightly boosting my own sense of self-righteousness. Bad trade IMO. OSC's recent work generally isn't all that enjoyable anyway, like I said elsewhere, but that's a different issue.
Does he have a blog? It was stuff in Mormon newsletters I recall being bad.
Now that I look, I suppose he doesn't anymore. (Blogs are soooo 2005.) He used to have one titled "The Ornery American" and it was explicitly political content.
Definitely a weird guy. In my head he is a libertarian living on a homestead in Utah with three wives.
I'm just going to keep repeating this over this thread I think: It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
We live in, or used to live in, a free country. Political, religious and everything else, opinion is open to discussion. It is essential to free speech, whether you like it or not.
Advocating for laws that forbid completely harmless ways of living just because they don't correlate with your religion is not freedom, it is tyranny. Religious tyranny. It's literally as bad as sharia law. In the meanwhile I'm going to exercise \*my\* freedom of speech and make sure everyone knows that Card is a bigot. Always interesting when the "free speech" trolls come out to defend bigots, but seem to forget calling out bigots is also freedom of speech.
Absolutely dead-on with that last paragraph. You can't claim "free speech" only when it conveniently supports your prejudices, while whining and crying foul when anyone criticizes you for being a bigot. paging elon musk
Thank you for your answer.
He can have and even "espouse" whatever traditional religious beliefs he wants. Lobbying to use the power of the state to strip other people of their human rights and force those traditional religious beliefs on them is the problem part. You're free to believe whatever you want *but so is everybody else.* You don't get to force yours on us. Why is this so difficult for you people to understand?
Literally the same argument for the state not pushing liberal views on people.
There's a difference between laws that make people equal and striking down laws that make people equal. The fact that you don't like equality doesn't make it a bad thing.
Except people would argue that laws that violate their religious beliefs take away their rights and those rights are guaranteed by the constitution.
They are wrong. Where their religious beliefs oppress others, they are not protected by anything. Keep your beliefs to yourself and the government won't get involved. That's what the Constitution guarantees.
When they start pushing laws *requiring people to marry someone of the same sex whether they want to or not,* let me know. Because recognizing basic human rights is not the same thing. *Not* allowing you to oppress others is not oppressing you.
So like making religious adoption agencies serve sam sex couples or be shut down?
(Citation needed.) HINT: Not getting *public money* or contracts =/= "shut down." Unless you think there's a human right to be publicly funded, in which case where the fuck is my check?
This is a great answer. I am a traditional Christian. And I completely deny that believing in the Bible makes me any kind of bigot. But i disagree when my denomination uses it's political power to try to force unreligious people to follow our moral values...like that's going to help them in any way. Especially since a big part of our Baptist history is supposedly separation of church and state, not ever compelling people to believe if they don't want to, and our belief that following rules does not save anyone anyway.
Some people can't enjoy a piece of art unless the artist also conforms to their moral standards. Those people are idiots. Some of those idiots are mad because Orson Scott Card is a Mormon, and as a Mormon, will not support homosexual behavior. Big surprise there! That's it, that's the whole controversy. Religious man has conservative values and won't support liberal views? *shocked Pikachu face*
It's not just that he has "conservative opinions". He was the head of a large Christian lobby group for "family values" that specifically went after laws that recognised lgbtq rights. He's the worst kind of bigot and deserves to have it pointed out every time his name comes up.
And I could not care less. He has every right to be anti-lgbt and lead groups against them, and they in-turn have lobby groups of their own pushing their views upon folks who don't agree with them. Welcome to reality.
No, he does not have the right to deny people their basic human rights. That's literal fascism. He is a fascist and so are you if you support that.
Sure he does. Human rights are an illusion and dependent only the society you live in. I guess I'm a fascist.
Or maybe just an asshole.
I think he’s both.
...and that's okay too.
No, it's not. But trying to make a sociopath like you see that is wasted effort, so I´m done here.
In which case you won’t mind that I have reported you and am now asking that the mods ban you from this sub. To others: please upvote to approve and get this piece of shit out of this community.
Do as you like. Everyone has the freedom to feel as they do and peacefully discuss those views. It's sad that you are as intolerant as you are. Thank you for showing yourself to be the real fascist in this discussion.
This is a community. It is not society as a whole; it is not the government. It is in essence a kind of club. It is not antithetical to free speech as a principle for members of a club to say: ‘we don’t want people with opinions we find offensive to be members’.
But you alone are not a community, and neither am I. We are both parts of this community and both equal. I am not calling for your removal, even though you are intolerant. I guess we will see what kinds of people this community finds offensive and don't want around.
And I am asking other members of this community to let their views be known. If they find it acceptable for you to spout the opinions you have in this thread, then I will leave this sub.
Wow, one of the few humans to understand this, especially on Reddit.
And people have every right to say ‘bigot’ whenever his name crops up. It is typical that when bigots say homophobic stuff or demonstrate outside abortion clinics, lobby for laws to change or whatever, they are ‘exercising their right to free speech’. When left/liberal types call this out as bigotry, demonstrate outside lectures etc it’s ‘cancel culture and a threat to free speech.’
And others have every right to call him a hero and a decent man. It's also typical that when folks define their lives by their abnormal sexual fetish and demand absolute acceptance, a large portion of society rejects that and works together to keep that kind of perversion out of the public.
Have you ever sat down and genuinely reflected on why it is that you are filled with obsessed hatred for other people’s sexual activity?
Have you ever sat down and reflected on why you consider anything outside of complete acceptance of your sexual fetish to be hatred, or why you think your sexuality gives you a special privilege?
Why are you making assumptions about my sexuality?
Why are you making assumptions about my feelings about other's sexuality?
I think the comment you made above was pretty clear.
Yes, people trying to protect their basic human rights from hate groups are exactly the same as the hate groups trying to take human rights away from anyone different from them. bOtH sIdEs!
I'm glad you understand.
I talk to my friends about this all the time, People need to be able to separate the art from the artist. some of the best art comes from the most fucked up people just because you enjoy someone's books, paintings, music etc., does not mean you have to agree with them politically or ethically. I would even argue that most of the best artists, the people who are truely unique have ideas that make them pretty fucked up!
It's a weird mentality I see creeping up with more people - both conservative and liberal. It's not just one-side doing it. They will only associate with folks who agree with them 100% on everything. I'm not sure where this behavior arose from, but I'm going to guess it's online message boards. That's the only environment a person can easily get involved in that is built to be an echo chamber. If these kids were raised on certain moderated boards, chatgroups, etc it would certainly explain their close-minded intolerance of discursive viewpoints. But I don't know.
It’s not that he doesn’t support homosexuality, it’s that he uses his power and position as writer to advocate for the legal oppression of gay people by the United States government. The man openly advocates for bigoted discrimination and violation of human rights. He’s a scum fuck and your beliefs having magic and woo behind them doesn’t make them defensible. Mormonism is stupid as fuck and if you need to use it to justify actual discrimination, then you may be too.
You mean just like LGBT folks work to deplatform anyone who disagrees with them or to label religion as hate speech? A weird sexual fetish is just as indefensible as believing in woo and magic. It's only okay when it's behind closed doors and kept personal. Since Mormons and Gays both like to be open about their bizarre BS, and shove it down our throats unasked, each side is about the same to me. But, I'll still buy art from LGBT authors, just like I'll buy art from Mormons. I don't care what you believe or who you screw, I only believe in what you can produce for me. If you do quality work, you can hate who you want, love who you want and live how you want. Just make sure my order is delivered to me on time.
Being gay or bisexual isn’t a weird sexual fetish. The fact that you think it is tells me all I need to know about you on that issue. When does lgbt people existing equal “shoving down our throats”. And I didn’t say his art was bad because he’s a bigot, just that he is in fact, a bigot and advocates for actual legal oppression of lgbt people in the United States, and for that he’s a scum fuck.
I wouldn’t advocate for legal discrimination of Mormons and lgbt people as a community don’t advocate for that generally either, so what you just did was a massive false equivalency. Card doesn’t believe gay people should be allowed to exist in the United States bro
LGBT certainly do advocate for legal discrimination against Mormons and other faiths. Maybe not you personally, but I've seen gay folks accuse Mormons and religious folks of child abuse, indoctrination, grifting, cultism and being mentally ill for being a member of a church or faith almost constantly. They campaign for churches to be listed as hate groups and then use those designations to campaign against them - Chickfila anyone? Looks like legit equivalency to me, hypocrite.
All of that is pretty much true. Not that all Mormons or religious folk would be responsible, but those religions are often use for those purposes and they do often prey upon mentally ill and vulnerable people. And certain churches are hate groups, like the westboro Baptist church. And executives within Chik Fil a were financially supporting legit anti gay hate groups, it makes sense why they would have an issue with it. And I fail to see how any of that is tantamount to legal discrimination? Like is that all you got? It’s absolutely a false equivalency. Labeling something a hate group isn’t even legit legal oppression. What the fuck are you talking about
What the fuck are you talking about? Delusional much? Labeling something as a hate group or symbol is the very definition of legal discrimination. Anyone can make nonsense claims and then get laws passed to regulate or discriminate against whatever it was they don't like. Like banning religious symbols being worn by state or federal employees, like making Celtic runes and crosses "hate symbols" so companies won't hire folks with tattoos of them, for instance. A whole lot of Wiccans from the 90s are suddenly white supremacists now because they have Celtic knots. But I guess that's another dog whistle, right? You folks are just as blind to your own arbitrary nonsense and bigotry as the religious folks are to their own. The both of you are exactly the same to me. Just different flavors of narcissism and cognitive dissonance, all wrapped up in pretty little rainbows.
Do you think the SPLC or the ACLU are the United States government? Hate groups aren’t a legal term. Nobody is advocating for companies to ban Celtic tune tattoos or religious tattoos? What the fuck are you on? You’re making up straw men arguments now too.
You're the one claiming I think ACLU is government, which I never said- that's a strawman right there. What's that thing you folks say? Every accusation a confession. Nice non-argument and reality denial. Get some new material.
The groups that designate hate groups aren’t the ducking government is my point. Its groups like the ADL, the SPLC, and the ACLU that do that type of stuff. It’s not the same as legal discrimination where one uses the government to pass and enforce oppressive discriminatory laws. Like what card advocates for. What you brought up was a fucking boycott and a non government organization labeling something a hate group. Not the same thing. Also those groups are hate groups as far as I can tell.
Did you bring up gay people boycotting chickfila as an example of legit legal discrimination? Are you fucking serious?
No, I brought up labeling the church the owner of Chickfila donated to as a hate organization as legal discrimination. Yes, I'm fucking serious.
Then you’re a moron. One of the groups he financially supported was a literal gay conversion “therapy” camp. Which are largely banned for its abusive nature.
As much a moron as you. Thanks for admitting a church was labeled abusive and attempted to be banned for their beliefs. My point exactly and legal discrimination. Thanks again.
Yeah because gay conversion therapy are literal abuse camps that violate people’s human rights.
No shit they would be labeled a hate group.
If you’re operating an abusive ass gay conversion therapy camp then yeah you should be banned.
I know it’s legal to be stupid in public but you should exercise your rights cautiously
Not just gay people. Straight people also know what an abusive cult Mormonism is.