Orson Scott Card, "Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe"

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I see no evidence whatsoever that he didn't intend it to be taken literally, your fanboyism for Card aside. Not taking it literally because you think he's a skilled writer seems intellectually dishonest to me.

You misunderstood my post. Mr. Card usually does not write in this inflammatory style. He chose to do so for this one essay. Ask yourself why.

[Andurian]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You misunderstood my post. Mr. Card usually does not write in this inflammatory style. He chose to do so for this one essay. Ask yourself why.

I disagree that he usually (in the context of his essays) doesn't write in this inflammatory style - he's written this way, though usually not going quite so far, about other social issues as well. All three of his major pieces on homosexuality seem pretty inflammatory to me. And he is generally taken to mean exactly what he says in them - do a web search for "Orson Scott Card homosexuality" to see how he has been interpreted for *years* (the first written of the essays I linked to above was written in 1990).

I know if *I* wrote an essay that was intended as over-the-top obviously ironic commentary on a topic and was taken by the public at large as meaning exactly what I said (and hence something quite different from what I intended), I'd quickly go "Gack! No, guys, that was irony!" No such response from Card, though he has said that he doesn't think gay folks should be beaten up. Huzzah!

And his conclusion that if you have belief system X and the government does Y then the government has no moral authority and should be removed follows an article *arguing for* belief system X and that the government is doing Y. When you pair that with the fact he's argued for belief system X in the past and against the government doing Y, its hard to imagine how he *could* be speaking tongue-in-cheek.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I disagree that he usually (in the context of his essays) doesn't write in this inflammatory style - he's written this way, though usually not going quite so far, about other social issues as well. All three of his major pieces on homosexuality seem pretty inflammatory to me. And he is generally taken to mean exactly what he says in them - do a web search for "Orson Scott Card homosexuality" to see how he has been interpreted for *years* (the first written of the essays I linked to above was written in 1990).

Just becuase you do not agree with his essays does not mean they are inflammatory.

Google is down at the moment, so I can't do any research. But neither of the 2 essays you link to are inflammatory. The one he wrote back in 1990 is almost scholarly in the emotional impact he imparts.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Google is down at the moment,

Google is not down.

If that happened the world would end.

BOb

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Google is not down.

If that happened the world would end.

BOb

I can't get it to load. The world must be coming to an end.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I can't get it to load. The world must be coming to an end.

It must be you or a local issue, because it is working fine for me. Then again, I am part of "real America".

BOb

[Phogg]

Ms. Rowling is upset because some one dropped a house on her sister, and took those shoes she wanted.

[radleyp]

Nate, this started as a thread about Card's view of Rowling and her battle over copyright issues. It's pretty clear by now that Rowling was not being simply mean and overreaching and even VanArk wound up conceding her rights. Now we are discussing Card's views of homosexuality which are typical of someone who interprets the word of God as condemning homosexuality as a sin. I am not going to get into it because I don't consider the views of a fervent Mormon to be a good guide on many social issues and certainly not homosexuality, and when it comes to the constitution and state laws Card takes foolish and unrealistic positions. What perplexes me, however, is this: why are we discussing this here?

[Over]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I disagree that he usually (in the context of his essays) doesn't write in this inflammatory style - he's written this way, though usually not going quite so far, about other social issues as well. All three of his major pieces on homosexuality seem pretty inflammatory to me. And he is generally taken to mean exactly what he says in them - do a web search for "Orson Scott Card homosexuality" to see how he has been interpreted for *years* (the first written of the essays I linked to above was written in 1990).

I know if *I* wrote an essay that was intended as over-the-top obviously ironic commentary on a topic and was taken by the public at large as meaning exactly what I said (and hence something quite different from what I intended), I'd quickly go "Gack! No, guys, that was irony!" No such response from Card, though he has said that he doesn't think gay folks should be beaten up. Huzzah!

And his conclusion that if you have belief system X and the government does Y then the government has no moral authority and should be removed follows an article *arguing for* belief system X and that the government is doing Y. When you pair that with the fact he's argued for belief system X in the past and against the government doing Y, its hard to imagine how he *could* be speaking tongue-in-cheek.

You sound inflammatory about OSC's essays about homosexuality. He has the right for an opinion. Can gay people claim being for gay marriage? Sure. Can other people claim being agains't gay marriage? Sure too.