If I know someons a douche, I find it harder to enjoy their work. So I try to avoid finding out anything about the personal lives of authors, actors, directors, whatever.
I find this akin to a child who covers their ears and yells so they won't hear it's bedtime.
You're a moron, then. Why the fuck should I go out of my way to find out anything about the authors or artists personal lives?
That's awesome, throw out the insults while mischaracterizing my statements. Do you work for McCain by any chance?
Answer assuming you're not intent on being a raging douche: I didn't say you should go out of your way to find out things about authors. I said I find going out of your way to remain ignorant of these faults as childish. The faults will still exist and you'd still be supporting them except now you don't know what you're supporting. By preserving your ignorance you're just abdicating any responsibility you may have.
I can respect (even if I don't understand) not reading/supporting artists whose views you do not respect. I find sticking your head in the sand immature, ignoring the difficult question because you lack the conviction to make a choice.
Thanks for following up - It confirmed that you're an idiot. Lacking the conviction to make a choice, about this difficult question? Why are you so obsessed with their lives?
If I know someons a douche, I find it harder to enjoy their work. So I try to avoid finding out anything about the personal lives of authors, actors, directors, whatever.
I find this akin to a child who covers their ears and yells so they won't hear it's bedtime.
You're a moron, then. Why the fuck should I go out of my way to find out anything about the authors or artists personal lives?
That's awesome, throw out the insults while mischaracterizing my statements. Do you work for McCain by any chance?
Answer assuming you're not intent on being a raging douche: I didn't say you should go out of your way to find out things about authors. I said I find going out of your way to remain ignorant of these faults as childish. The faults will still exist and you'd still be supporting them except now you don't know what you're supporting. By preserving your ignorance you're just abdicating any responsibility you may have.
I can respect (even if I don't understand) not reading/supporting artists whose views you do not respect. I find sticking your head in the sand immature, ignoring the difficult question because you lack the conviction to make a choice.
Thanks for following up - It confirmed that you're an idiot. Lacking the conviction to make a choice, about this difficult question? Why are you so obsessed with their lives?
....you're not reading a fucking thing I'm writing. Are you going to join in a discussion or just fling insults?
His religious convictions are actually what make Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead so good. It's what makes everything beginning from Xenocide and after suck.
Roland Barthes' essay Death of the Author would be considered more than relevant reading if you're interested in the philosophical side of removing the author from their text (without even really considering the greater implications like plurality of interpretation, etc... that he really gets into in S/Z).
At the very least, it / the wikipedia are interesting reading.
Yeah, I'm very much in the second camp. I'm pretty adamant about the author's prejudices, opinions, or even intentions, having little to do with the actual work. I made my english teacher's lives hell by always insisting that just because the author said later that something in a book meant something, that wasn't a good enough justification.
Edit: missed this. If you remain an advocate of this theory you might want to read about the idea of ""Intentional Fallacy" in criticism, an idea developed around the 1950s. Very similiar to the ideas in the Roland Barthes' essay I mentioned earlier.
(hate to just keep dropping wikipedia articles but I'm in a hurry and they summarize the points better than I could, I just thought if you're really interested in this topic / discussion it might bring some new material into play)
An_Passerby on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Roland Barthes' essay Death of the Author would be considered more than relevant reading if you're interested in the philosophical side of removing the author from their text (without even really considering the greater implications like plurality of interpretation, etc... that he really gets into in S/Z).
At the very least, it / the wikipedia are interesting reading.
Roland Barthes' essay Death of the Author would be considered more than relevant reading if you're interested in the philosophical side of removing the author from their text (without even really considering the greater implications like plurality of interpretation, etc... that he really gets into in S/Z).
At the very least, it / the wikipedia are interesting reading.
I think this conundrum is a bit like that of "objectivity". It is always impossible for a journalist, a judge, a historian etc. to withhold a perspective of objectivity but it should always remain a quest to pursue objectivity even though it is in fact impossible.
I always try to look upon art as autonomous as possible (not taking genre, context or creator into consideration at all), this is of course entirely impossible but it still is a perspective that works in favor of the art.
I didnt know that about Card. But I think that the more you understand about the creator - the better you understand the material, and its context. I dont think his homophobia directly relates to a lot of the topics of the story - But I'd personally rather know I was misinterpreting a piece of art - then continue to think I knew what it was really saying.
I'm unsure how I feel about it. I liked the book (I didnt think it was a masterpiece). But he's obviously a bit of a dick.
What are some other examples of this kind of thing?
There's no hard and fast rule for this. It depends on the artist and the work in question. Sometimes it adds a layer of understanding to a work (knowing why Van Gogh's has a bandage over his ear in some of his last self-portraits), and sometimes it has no bearing whatsoever (James Stewart was ultra-conservative and sort of a racist).
I prefer to get my digs in when I write the piece up, like this. It's a way of fighting back without ever having to face my tormentor head-on.
Ugh.
I see no problem with this - if you're writing and article on a person then point is to get them to talk about themselves, not turn it into you're average D&D thread.
So, I've actually enjoyed some science fiction from an author who was an even worse human being than Card was.
Yes, that's right. I read and actually liked Battlefield Earth before I ever found out Hubbard was actually a con artist pedophile cult leader.
I think it gave me an interesting perspective on it. That book was Hubbard's most famous work, and it gets a ton of criticism that I think is mostly just thinly-veiled criticism of the author himself, and not really of the work. I mean, for the most part (not completely, of course) he kept his politics largely out of it, in stark contrast to his later "Mission Earth" books which were nothing more than thinly-veiled attacks on psychologists and homosexuals.
I dunno, I think that when a reader learns a lot about the author, they can't help but read the book in that context.
Battlefield Earth is a terrible book, regardless of the author's wackiness. Pulp SF of the direst kind. It may well get stick from people who loathe scientology, but it's also a badly written slab of pus with utterly putrid science and neanderthal morality.
Battlefield Earth is a terrible book, regardless of the author's wackiness. Pulp SF of the direst kind. It may well get stick from people who loathe scientology, but it's also a badly written slab of pus with utterly putrid science and neanderthal morality.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
It was a fun little action-ey romp whose only real flaw was being twice as long as strictly necessary.
Also terrible: the introduction to Battlefield Earth.
Man, I skip those for any author. Get to the damn story; I didn't order the Making of... DVD.
The one for Battlefield Earth isn't just the usual boring waffle, though, it's an attempt to write himself into the history of SF as one of the greats, and is offensively untrue. It's a glorious example of the man's wackiness.
Hah, just reading the reviews (455 of them) of it on Amazon: they range from 'greatest book I've ever read' to 'I Had to Bathe my Eyes in Fire'. Awesome. I'm trying to find David Langford's famous review of it online but having no luck beyond the last line: 'From this, Battlefield may sound almost worth looking at for its sheer laughable badness. No. It's dreadful and tedious beyond endurance'.
Heh. That's pretty funny; if I find my old copy I'll take a look at it.
And, I mean, I'll say right now that if he ended the book at about the halfway mark, when the bad guys were all routed and the big plane of death had been destroyed, the book would have been a lot better. But it wasn't nearly as terrible as most people have made it out to be. I've read far worse pieces of science fiction, (some by the same author).
Man, you're just reading his book, not electing the gay-hating religious maniac president.
You don't have to completely 100% align with a person's opinions, tastes and personality to enjoy their art. A reverse example - I can enjoy Elton John songs without having to be homosexual. I don't need to be gay just to enjoy music created by a homosexual. Likewise, I don't need to be a homophobe just to enjoy a book written by a mental gay-hater.
If Ender's Game specifically and intentionally portrayed homosexuality in a negative light then it'd be a different story, but then it'd also be a different story.
This is a pretty big spoiler of the final twist of Ender's Game, but it specifically pertains to the line of this argument
Oddly, Ender's Game is, if anything, a moral tale about acceptance of people and behaviours you might find alien and the damage that comes from bigotry - a contradiction of Card's true opinions?
I do make a point not to purchase art from pricks, particularly rich ones, since they usually donate money to organizations that I also oppose. Thankfully, the internet makes this option quite easy to accomplish nowadays.
Quid on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited August 2008
As long as the art is actually separated from the artist, I don't really have a problem with it. I enjoy listening to Michael Jackson's music, even if he might be a bit of a psycho. I (mostly) enjoy watching movies with Tom Cruise or Will Smith, even though Scientology is a disgusting crock of shit.
I might change my mind if the next Tom Cruise blockbuster was something like Battlefield: Earth, or Jackson released an album titled "I Like Fucking Little Kids, Jahmon." Barring that, I don't really mind it.
Smith is no Scientologist mofo. He just doesn't think the bulk of it is any crazier that other religions. Something a lot of the people here would claim too.
Smith is no Scientologist mofo. He just doesn't think the bulk of it is any crazier that other religions. Something a lot of the people here would claim too.
What? I'm pretty certain Will Smith is a card-carrying Scientologist.
Smith is no Scientologist mofo. He just doesn't think the bulk of it is any crazier that other religions. Something a lot of the people here would claim too.
What? I'm pretty certain Will Smith is a card-carrying Scientologist.
Sauce?
I heard that he game money to a school that expoused some teaching methods based on Hubbards stuff - but he just said that he wanted to support the kids...?
Smith is no Scientologist mofo. He just doesn't think the bulk of it is any crazier that other religions. Something a lot of the people here would claim too.
What? I'm pretty certain Will Smith is a card-carrying Scientologist.
Sauce?
I heard that he game money to a school that expoused some teaching methods based on Hubbards stuff - but he just said that he wanted to support the kids...?
Yeah..according to Wikipedia...
Smith has said he has studied multiple religions including Scientology and he has said many complimentary things about Scientology and other faiths. He and his wife are close friends of prominent Scientologists Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, which has led to rumors that Smith is also a Scientologist. Although Smith has said, "I just think a lot of the ideas in Scientology are brilliant and revolutionary and non-religious."[24][25] and, "Ninety-eight percent of the principles in Scientology are identical to the principles of the Bible.... I don't think that because the word someone uses for spirit is 'thetan' that the definition becomes any different"[26], he has denied having joined the Scientology Church, saying "I am a Christian. I am a student of all religions, and I respect all people and all paths."[27]. After Jada made the film Collateral with Cruise in 2004, the couple donated USD$20,000 to Scientology's literacy campaign, called HELP, The Hollywood Education and Literacy Program, which is the basis for Scientology's home-schooling system.[28] After finishing work on the film Hancock, Smith gave crew members gift cards for a Scientology personality test at any Church of Scientology center as a wrap present; this despite the fact that initial personality tests given by the organization are usually gratis.
Frankly, I'll eat my hat if he isn't a Scientologist.
Or just a shameless leach, I guess.
Either way, anybody who paints Scientology in a positive light is basically evil.
Claims he's Christian. They donated 20k to their literacy foundation and he's given out cards for personality tests as presents. The second bit is the part that bugs me , but he's still claiming otherwise.
Edit: It wouldn't be crazy to do that stuff to keep contacts in Hollywood. 20k isn't exactly a massive amount for a celebrity like Smith to donate to any charity.
I can separate the art from the artist easily enough when I do something once like read a novel or watch a movie. When it comes to repeated encounters such as buying a painting or a cd that will be listened to many times, I tend to view the product and producer as more of a package.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
A lot of people argue that it is impossible to completely separate an artist's work from the artist themselves. Others argue that art can be appreciated in a vacuum, regardless of the artist's extra-curricular antics/opinions. What say you, D&D; is it possible to appreciate the genius of a painting/book/movie knowing that the person who created it is a gigantic raging twat, or is it all just fruit of the poisonous tree?
It is very, very rare when an author can be as hard-headed an ideologue as Card and not let that influence their work. In Card's case, his crazy is almost entirely rooted in some obvious deep sexual repression - which he sidesteps in Ender's Game by writing about children.
Even then there's a little bit of weird shit going on in Ender's Game; specifically the non-sexual-yet-vaguely-creepy semi-romantic relationship between Ender and Valentine; that is not the product of a healthy mind.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I have a copy of Ender's Game that I can't read because I'm afraid of liking it. I'm just glad I didn't buy it. I keep reading other books to put it off. I'm in the middle of Ishmael for, like, the umpteenth fucking time, and I don't even like it that much.
This has been pointed out as silly. Card writes some good fiction, I really think he's an excellent short story author. He has offensive as fuck views, but most really good artists are socially dysfunctional in one way or the other.
I don't really care if it's silly or not. It doesn't have to be logical, it's just my preference. I don't want to praise a fucking dumbshit fundie asshole.
But you've already got the book.
As far as anyone is concerned, you've already praised him by buying the book.
I didn't buy the book. It was given to me by a friend when I said I refused to buy it.
And Jesus Christ people, all I said is that I don't want to like the book because I don't want to give any praise to the raving douchebag that Card is. It's an entirely personal thing, I don't put that on anybody else. Read it, enjoy it, I just don't really want to.
I have a hard time watching someone in a film if I find out he's a vacuous dipshit, or something. Every time someone decides to rant stupidly about politics - and 95% of the time, their rants are stupid - it makes me enjoy their movies less. Or if I just find out the person is a complete fucking idiot. Or a total prick.
It's easier for art and literature, because you're not constantly staring at the person who's a fuckstick. Also not so bad with directors, for the same reason. Which is why I can watch Rosemary's Baby, but I squirm if I have to watch a Sean Penn film.
There are exceptions. I think Tim Robbins is a dolt, but he's an awesome enough actor that I can let it slide. I can't watch anything of Alec Baldwin's any more, though.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I find it very difficult emotionally to divorce the art from the artist, yet very easy to do so intellectually. I still like Ender's Game, I just feel kind of bad about liking it now. It's something I wish that I could get over, because I'm sure it's ultimately going to prevent me from fully enjoying lots of good things.
I think there's a difference here between literature and movies.
At least for me. I don't know why. But if I strongly dislike an actor for reasons pertaining to his actions in real life as opposed to the characters he plays, then I tend to not want to see a movie with the actor in it.
For books - no problems, really. For music - probably halfway between books and movies.
I have a hard time watching someone in a film if I find out he's a vacuous dipshit, or something. Every time someone decides to rant stupidly about politics - and 95% of the time, their rants are stupid - it makes me enjoy their movies less. Or if I just find out the person is a complete fucking idiot. Or a total prick.
It's easier for art and literature, because you're not constantly staring at the person who's a fuckstick. Also not so bad with directors, for the same reason. Which is why I can watch Rosemary's Baby, but I squirm if I have to watch a Sean Penn film.
There are exceptions. I think Tim Robbins is a dolt, but he's an awesome enough actor that I can let it slide. I can't watch anything of Alec Baldwin's any more, though.
A lot of people argue that it is impossible to completely separate an artist's work from the artist themselves. Others argue that art can be appreciated in a vacuum, regardless of the artist's extra-curricular antics/opinions. What say you, D&D; is it possible to appreciate the genius of a painting/book/movie knowing that the person who created it is a gigantic raging twat, or is it all just fruit of the poisonous tree?
It is very, very rare when an author can be as hard-headed an ideologue as Card and not let that influence their work. In Card's case, his crazy is almost entirely rooted in some obvious deep sexual repression - which he sidesteps in Ender's Game by writing about children.
Even then there's a little bit of weird shit going on in Ender's Game; specifically the non-sexual-yet-vaguely-creepy semi-romantic relationship between Ender and Valentine; that is not the product of a healthy mind.
The thing is, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind are not about children (mostly) and yet I never had an inkling of any of this shit from reading them. I mean, one of the subplots is a kinda romantic relationship between a guy and a computer program, which while it may appear as female and try and act female is still a freaking AI and thus essentiallly genderless. And that's apparently okay with Card but not gays?
Card's Homecoming series on the other hand, is batshit crazy and it shows. Same with Empire.
The Worthing short stories on the other hand are again fairly normal.
It's like... Ender is himself such a good person that even Card can't fuck him up. Or something.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
The thing is, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind are not about children (mostly) and yet I never had an inkling of any of this shit from reading them. I mean, one of the subplots is a kinda romantic relationship between a guy and a computer program, which while it may appear as female and try and act female is still a freaking AI and thus essentiallly genderless. And that's apparently okay with Card but not gays?
Card's Homecoming series on the other hand, is batshit crazy and it shows. Same with Empire.
The Worthing short stories on the other hand are again fairly normal.
It's like... Ender is himself such a good person that even Card can't fuck him up. Or something.
What's being referred to as Card's "Crazy" is pretty clearly the result of his religion's views on the issue. While it's unfortunate it's a kind of pathology that is pretty predictable.
Off hand though, I can't think of any Card story that really uses sex. There is some incidental stuff but it's rarely mentioned "on screen".
What's being referred to as Card's "Crazy" is pretty clearly the result of his religion's views on the issue. While it's unfortunate it's a kind of pathology that is pretty predictable.
I think his religion helps him rationalize his views on sexuality, but he manages to bring to the table an ire regarding homosexuality that he doesn't on other topics that makes me suspect that his motivation is not exclusively religious.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I don't know why we are so obsessed with the life of the artist in modern criticism, literary or otherwise.
If a work is bad, it's bad on its own; if it's racist, sexist, homophobic, espouses terrible ethics, whatever, a discerning reader can figure that out on their own. It doesn't matter if Card is an extraordinary bigot or something (just using examples), if the book doesn't espouse those principles, than it doesn't have them. I think everyone here in this community is probably a good enough critical reader to see whether a work credits stupid ideas, without having to point to the author for clues.
How is an artist related to the art they create? I would be monstrously stupid of me to suggest no relationship exists, obviously, but is that relationship significant enough to warrant digging around in the author's life for hints into greater insights? Can't we "get" a work of art or fiction on our own without it being necessary to try to figure out what the author really meant by scanning their life for hidden meanings? Sometimes a piece says what it says. Critical review of the work will tell you what it says, or at least leave you with plausible interpretation of what it means. What is gained by turning to the creator?
I'd just like to point out that this is the most unprofessional interview ever. It is as though the interviewer interviewed him for one thing, and then in post wrote his answers into a different interview.
If she took issue with things he was saying, she should have called him out on it during the interview, not written about it after the fact like some gossipy letter being passed around science class.
If a work is bad, it's bad on its own; if it's racist, sexist, homophobic, espouses terrible ethics, whatever, a discerning reader can figure that out on their own. It doesn't matter if Card is an extraordinary bigot or something (just using examples), if the book doesn't espouse those principles, than it doesn't have them. I think everyone here in this community is probably a good enough critical reader to see whether a work credits stupid ideas, without having to point to the author for clues.
I don't know. There are plenty of cases I think where it can be unclear as to what the message is supposed to be.
For example, there is plenty of evidence to make a case for Wheel of Time being either really progressive or really sexist.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If a work is bad, it's bad on its own; if it's racist, sexist, homophobic, espouses terrible ethics, whatever, a discerning reader can figure that out on their own. It doesn't matter if Card is an extraordinary bigot or something (just using examples), if the book doesn't espouse those principles, than it doesn't have them. I think everyone here in this community is probably a good enough critical reader to see whether a work credits stupid ideas, without having to point to the author for clues.
I don't know. There are plenty of cases I think where it can be unclear as to what the message is supposed to be.
For example, there is plenty of evidence to make a case for Wheel of Time being either really progressive or really sexist.
The point is that studying the author's life doesn't necessarily clear that up.
Posts
Thanks for following up - It confirmed that you're an idiot. Lacking the conviction to make a choice, about this difficult question? Why are you so obsessed with their lives?
....you're not reading a fucking thing I'm writing. Are you going to join in a discussion or just fling insults?
His religious convictions are actually what make Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead so good. It's what makes everything beginning from Xenocide and after suck.
At the very least, it / the wikipedia are interesting reading.
Edit: missed this. If you remain an advocate of this theory you might want to read about the idea of ""Intentional Fallacy" in criticism, an idea developed around the 1950s. Very similiar to the ideas in the Roland Barthes' essay I mentioned earlier.
(hate to just keep dropping wikipedia articles but I'm in a hurry and they summarize the points better than I could, I just thought if you're really interested in this topic / discussion it might bring some new material into play)
I like the cut of that guy's jib.
I think you can see what I'm getting at.
I always try to look upon art as autonomous as possible (not taking genre, context or creator into consideration at all), this is of course entirely impossible but it still is a perspective that works in favor of the art.
I'm unsure how I feel about it. I liked the book (I didnt think it was a masterpiece). But he's obviously a bit of a dick.
What are some other examples of this kind of thing?
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Yes, that's right. I read and actually liked Battlefield Earth before I ever found out Hubbard was actually a con artist pedophile cult leader.
I think it gave me an interesting perspective on it. That book was Hubbard's most famous work, and it gets a ton of criticism that I think is mostly just thinly-veiled criticism of the author himself, and not really of the work. I mean, for the most part (not completely, of course) he kept his politics largely out of it, in stark contrast to his later "Mission Earth" books which were nothing more than thinly-veiled attacks on psychologists and homosexuals.
I dunno, I think that when a reader learns a lot about the author, they can't help but read the book in that context.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
It was a fun little action-ey romp whose only real flaw was being twice as long as strictly necessary.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Man, I skip those for any author. Get to the damn story; I didn't order the Making of... DVD.
The one for Battlefield Earth isn't just the usual boring waffle, though, it's an attempt to write himself into the history of SF as one of the greats, and is offensively untrue. It's a glorious example of the man's wackiness.
Hah, just reading the reviews (455 of them) of it on Amazon: they range from 'greatest book I've ever read' to 'I Had to Bathe my Eyes in Fire'. Awesome. I'm trying to find David Langford's famous review of it online but having no luck beyond the last line: 'From this, Battlefield may sound almost worth looking at for its sheer laughable badness. No. It's dreadful and tedious beyond endurance'.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
And, I mean, I'll say right now that if he ended the book at about the halfway mark, when the bad guys were all routed and the big plane of death had been destroyed, the book would have been a lot better. But it wasn't nearly as terrible as most people have made it out to be. I've read far worse pieces of science fiction, (some by the same author).
You don't have to completely 100% align with a person's opinions, tastes and personality to enjoy their art. A reverse example - I can enjoy Elton John songs without having to be homosexual. I don't need to be gay just to enjoy music created by a homosexual. Likewise, I don't need to be a homophobe just to enjoy a book written by a mental gay-hater.
If Ender's Game specifically and intentionally portrayed homosexuality in a negative light then it'd be a different story, but then it'd also be a different story.
This is a pretty big spoiler of the final twist of Ender's Game, but it specifically pertains to the line of this argument
I might change my mind if the next Tom Cruise blockbuster was something like Battlefield: Earth, or Jackson released an album titled "I Like Fucking Little Kids, Jahmon." Barring that, I don't really mind it.
What? I'm pretty certain Will Smith is a card-carrying Scientologist.
Sauce?
I heard that he game money to a school that expoused some teaching methods based on Hubbards stuff - but he just said that he wanted to support the kids...?
Yeah..according to Wikipedia...
Frankly, I'll eat my hat if he isn't a Scientologist.
Or just a shameless leach, I guess.
Either way, anybody who paints Scientology in a positive light is basically evil.
Edit: It wouldn't be crazy to do that stuff to keep contacts in Hollywood. 20k isn't exactly a massive amount for a celebrity like Smith to donate to any charity.
True, but you just don't get the full experience...
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
It is very, very rare when an author can be as hard-headed an ideologue as Card and not let that influence their work. In Card's case, his crazy is almost entirely rooted in some obvious deep sexual repression - which he sidesteps in Ender's Game by writing about children.
Even then there's a little bit of weird shit going on in Ender's Game; specifically the non-sexual-yet-vaguely-creepy semi-romantic relationship between Ender and Valentine; that is not the product of a healthy mind.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I didn't buy the book. It was given to me by a friend when I said I refused to buy it.
And Jesus Christ people, all I said is that I don't want to like the book because I don't want to give any praise to the raving douchebag that Card is. It's an entirely personal thing, I don't put that on anybody else. Read it, enjoy it, I just don't really want to.
It's easier for art and literature, because you're not constantly staring at the person who's a fuckstick. Also not so bad with directors, for the same reason. Which is why I can watch Rosemary's Baby, but I squirm if I have to watch a Sean Penn film.
There are exceptions. I think Tim Robbins is a dolt, but he's an awesome enough actor that I can let it slide. I can't watch anything of Alec Baldwin's any more, though.
At least for me. I don't know why. But if I strongly dislike an actor for reasons pertaining to his actions in real life as opposed to the characters he plays, then I tend to not want to see a movie with the actor in it.
For books - no problems, really. For music - probably halfway between books and movies.
Weird eh.
You're missing out.
The thing is, Speaker for the Dead, Xenocide, and Children of the Mind are not about children (mostly) and yet I never had an inkling of any of this shit from reading them. I mean, one of the subplots is a kinda romantic relationship between a guy and a computer program, which while it may appear as female and try and act female is still a freaking AI and thus essentiallly genderless. And that's apparently okay with Card but not gays?
Card's Homecoming series on the other hand, is batshit crazy and it shows. Same with Empire.
The Worthing short stories on the other hand are again fairly normal.
It's like... Ender is himself such a good person that even Card can't fuck him up. Or something.
Off hand though, I can't think of any Card story that really uses sex. There is some incidental stuff but it's rarely mentioned "on screen".
I think his religion helps him rationalize his views on sexuality, but he manages to bring to the table an ire regarding homosexuality that he doesn't on other topics that makes me suspect that his motivation is not exclusively religious.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If a work is bad, it's bad on its own; if it's racist, sexist, homophobic, espouses terrible ethics, whatever, a discerning reader can figure that out on their own. It doesn't matter if Card is an extraordinary bigot or something (just using examples), if the book doesn't espouse those principles, than it doesn't have them. I think everyone here in this community is probably a good enough critical reader to see whether a work credits stupid ideas, without having to point to the author for clues.
How is an artist related to the art they create? I would be monstrously stupid of me to suggest no relationship exists, obviously, but is that relationship significant enough to warrant digging around in the author's life for hints into greater insights? Can't we "get" a work of art or fiction on our own without it being necessary to try to figure out what the author really meant by scanning their life for hidden meanings? Sometimes a piece says what it says. Critical review of the work will tell you what it says, or at least leave you with plausible interpretation of what it means. What is gained by turning to the creator?
I'd just like to point out that this is the most unprofessional interview ever. It is as though the interviewer interviewed him for one thing, and then in post wrote his answers into a different interview.
If she took issue with things he was saying, she should have called him out on it during the interview, not written about it after the fact like some gossipy letter being passed around science class.
Royalties.
I don't know. There are plenty of cases I think where it can be unclear as to what the message is supposed to be.
For example, there is plenty of evidence to make a case for Wheel of Time being either really progressive or really sexist.
The point is that studying the author's life doesn't necessarily clear that up.