Escaho t1_iu1lbzo wrote
Reply to comment by donjohndijon in If you ever loved Enders Game, or science fiction in general, check out some of Card's other series. by donjohndijon
I know you've since learned about Card's personal beliefs, but I'd just like to comment on my experience.
I read Ender's Game when I was 15 years old. I loved it. It was my favorite book for a long time (until I was 21 when I read Dracula for the first time). I still think of it as an excellent novel, with brisk pacing, good characterization, great themes and motifs, and perhaps most importantly, a work that is perfect for young adults (teenagers) because the language isn't too complex and the work is very easy to read because of how engrossing it is.
Unfortunately, that all came crashing down in my early 20s when I learned of Card's personal beliefs. See, I'm someone who studied English and would love to be able to separate the art from the artist. This concept is very easy to do when the artist is dead--after all, they can no longer espouse hateful beliefs and write further works that may or may not contain such messaging. However, when the artist is still alive, we run into the problem where purchasing work by these artists sends money directly into their pockets, allowing them to continue to preach from their soapbox some extremely hateful things.
As a gay man who didn't fully accept himself until my early 20s, hearing about how Card would rather have me killed or cease to exist than be a fan of his works was heartbreaking. How could someone be so hateful? How could someone--a fellow artist, no less--not see me as a person, just like him, who wants to be creative and spread excitement and inspiration in the world?
After that, I could never buy another one of his works, and will never do so in the future.
psibomber t1_iu23ihg wrote
Card wrote Songmaster, which was about gay characters, claimed he had gay friends, and denied being homophobic.
I spent time in my early 20s too reading through the arguments against him. As far as I remember, he made one remark that could be interpreted as homophobic, and got pretty much canceled before the time of cancel culture. I don't think he was that hateful at all then, but the years and the public's treatment of him has probably worn him down.
I don't remember if he joined mormonism before or after his homophobic remark, but I've always been of the opinion that someone who did not like him ruined his public reputation and he was not as homophobic as people made it seem back then. Is he more homophobic now after what happened? Who knows.
Escaho t1_iu2ac51 wrote
He made "one remark that could be interpreted as homophobic"?
Here, I'll link you directly to an essay that Card published in 1990 (when he was 39 years old). It is entitled, "The Hypocrites of Homosexuality."
Card prefaces the essay by explaining that anyone using it to attack him as a homophobe clearly doesn't understand the context of the essay, specifically, a 1986 Georgia law prohibiting sodomy in the privacy of one's own home being constitutional. Additionally, he attempts to ground his essay in the beliefs of the Mormon Church, believing that this will shroud him a veil of protection for his own beliefs because he's just reiterating those of the church he frequents and supports.
But Card has significant problematic opinions in his essay. I will point out a few for reference:
>(Par. 1) I did learn that for most of [the homosexual community,] their highest allegiance was to their membership in the community that gave them access to sex.
>
>(Par. 2) And when one's life is given over to one community that demands utter allegiance, it cannot be given to another. The LDS church is one such community. The homosexual community seems to be another. And when I read the statements of those who claim to be both LDS and homosexual, trying to persuade the former community to cease making their membership contingent upon abandoning the latter, I wonder if they realize that the price of such "tolerance" would be, in the long run, the destruction of the Church.
See, because Card fundamentally believes that partaking in homosexual tendencies and homosexual acts is a sin, one cannot both be a follower of the Mormon church and someone who partakes in homosexual acts. He views the two as separate communities, and believes that someone who is homosexual can only adhere to one.
Notice how, throughout the entire essay, he avoids mentioning how one can easily be both heterosexual and a follower of the Mormon church. Basically, if you are male, it's completely fine to date women and have sex with your wife as much as you want, but if you are gay, you cannot date men nor get married to another man nor have sex with another man and still be a member of the church.
>(Par. 4) The argument by the hypocrites of homosexuality that homosexual tendencies are genetically ingrained in some individuals is almost laughably irrelevant. We are all genetically predisposed toward some sin or another; we are all expected to control those genetic predispositions when it is possible.
Here, Card tries to point out that it doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetically ingrained in an individual since birth--what matters is whether or not they 'act' on it. He tries to further explain that, much like when he was a 15-year old teenager, he also had urges to have sex, but was encouraged to fight against those urges. He explains that youth are forgiven for their transgressions, but that adults are not (and should not) be forgiven for failing to resist these urges (unless otherwise happily married).
>(Par. 5)Are we somehow cruel and overdomineering when we teach young men and young women that their lives will be better and happier if they have no memory of sexual intercourse with others to deal with when they finally are married? On the contrary, we would be heartless and cruel if we did not.
It's fine if we teach young men and women not to have sex until they are married, Card explains. Just so long as, when they grow up and finally get married, they are one man and one woman, and not two men or two women (or two LGBTQ+).
>(2008 article) No matter how sexually attracted a man might be toward other men, or a woman toward other women, and no matter how close the bonds of affection and friendship might be within same-sex couples, there is no act of court or Congress that can make these relationships the same as the coupling between a man and a woman.
And in 2008, Card published an article that gay marriage marked "the end of democracy in America." See, as long as homosexuals never act on their attraction to members of the same sex, and they follow all the ideals of the church, and if they choose to marry, they only do so to someone of the opposite sex, then that's fine!
Sorry, Card can try and hide behind the Church's beliefs in order to shield himself from the outcry of bigotry thrust upon him, but it's quite evident that his personal opinion is that homosexuals are acceptable in society so long as they never act on their attractions (ever) and, should they choose to get married, it must be to someone of the opposite sex. The man believed that gay marriage ruined democracy in his country for Christ's sake.
psibomber t1_iu2cl92 wrote
Sad. It sounds like he was hinting originally gay but got brainwashed by the mormon church. Thank you for clarifying
Imapancakenom t1_iu3ncsp wrote
He's 100% a closet homosexual
valgerth t1_iugridi wrote
Songmaster...the book where the gay character having an orgasm makes him permanently impotent and he kills himself? Yep, definitely an ally.
psibomber t1_iuj7eaj wrote
I see it differently it almost reads like a gay romance up till that point it sounded like the author understood what it is to be a man and love another man romantically but something caused him pain like a broken heart or didn't know to use lube correctly or something lol.
Then he got brainwashed to mormonism.
It's a tragedy, really.
donjohndijon OP t1_iu1mkkg wrote
To be fair, he didn't say you weren't a person. Just that you shouldn't consider yourself an equal person.
I'm joking. It's beyond abhorrent. I also don't think I can ever give him money again.
But I do wonder, how do you feel about reading books you own?
lohdunlaulamalla t1_iuhtzix wrote
>But I do wonder, how do you feel about reading books you own?
Bit late to this thread, but I can chime in here. Learning about Card's beliefs made me not want to read his books anymore, even though I'd enjoyed some of them.
I only ever had his books on Kindle, but I used to own several novels by a somewhat famous author from my country, who eventually came out as a racist and misogynistic asshole. The kind that gives speeches at rallyes. That was reason enough for me to ban him from my shelves, because I knew I wouldn't read those books again and I didn't want to be associated with his bigotry or seen to be tacitly endorcing his views by keeping them. Originally I'd planned to sell them and donate the proceeds to a charity that works with female refugees, but I couldn't find a second hand shop willing to take them. In the end, they landed in the trash and good riddance.
I haven't been able to stay away from my Harry Potter audiobooks, but I make a point not to spend any money on their author. No movie tickets, no "first hand" buying of books or merchandise.
donjohndijon OP t1_iuhzcf4 wrote
Yeah. I think it varies for me too. Not the money part, but the enjoying part.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments