Orson Scott Card

[HarryT]

No, I'm saying that talking about financially punishing Mr. Card for what he THINKS is basically saying that he's guilty of "thought crime". Ie, "he doesn't believe the same things that I do I'm not going to buy his books". I find that troubling.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm saying that talking about financially punishing Mr. Card for what he THINKS is basically saying that he's guilty of "thought crime". Ie, "he doesn't believe the same things that I do I'm not going to buy his books". I find that troubling.

Ok.. Now your really building a strawman..

I'm not denying Mr. Card's right to publish. I'm not denying Mr. Card's right to sell his books to anyone who is willing to purchase them.

I *refuse* to support individuals or organizations I disagree with. I don't support the KKK, I don't support the White Power movement, I don't support the right wing of the republican party. By your definition, you would seem to be troubled by that lack of financial support

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm saying that talking about financially punishing Mr. Card for what he THINKS is basically saying that he's guilty of "thought crime". Ie, "he doesn't believe the same things that I do I'm not going to buy his books". I find that troubling.

Why do you find it troubling? People make these kinds of decisions all of the time. There are several actors, musicians, organizations, etc. that I don't watch, listen, or support because of some of the stupid things they have said. I see nothing wrong with doing that in this case either.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, I'm saying that talking about financially punishing Mr. Card for what he THINKS is basically saying that he's guilty of "thought crime". Ie, "he doesn't believe the same things that I do I'm not going to buy his books". I find that troubling.

Except we don't want to buy his books (anymore) not for what he thinks, but for what he says and writes and publishes. It's not that he's a bigot, it's that he spends a great deal of time and effort pushing bigotry.

If you find that troubling, fine. We don't.

But you seem to be arguing that we don't have the same rights Mr. Card does, or that his bigotry is not worth talking about.

Are we supposed to just swallow whatever he puts out because he's 'somebody'?

I've read lots of distasteful things in my life - encountering different ideas is one of the main reasons for being a reader. But if I choose to no longer give money to someone who actively advocates homophobia and racism, then that's my prerogative.

If we don't judge people for what they say and write and publish and do, then how are we supposed to judge them?

[HarryT]

No, because in all those cases those organisations DO things that you disagree with. All Mr. Card seems to have done is to say that he personally disapproves of certain things. There is a fundamental difference. If you're saying that you're not going to buy Mr. Card's books because he doesn't think the same way that you do, aren't you bring just as bigoted as he is?

[DiapDealer]

From what I hear, Hamlet's Father (the novella that this thread was started about), is blatantly open about it's anti-gay stance. I don't know that for sure, I'm asking for first-hand knowledge/opinions on that. So far, I got nada, zip, bubkis.

I have no problem reading the works of authors who may make bigoted and/or racist comments in their everyday life from time-to-time (or may even be bigots). But I draw the line when those bigoted comments/stances find their way into their fiction. I've no desire to read polemic.

I was wondering if that was the case with all of OSC's works. I've been assured (by some of you here, and others as well) that this is not the case with a lot of his work. Based on that knowledge gained, I would have no reservations about trying some of his older works.

But thus far, I've not run into someone who can tell me first hand whether or not Hamlets' Father is as blatantly homophobic as the current internet furor would have me believe. Several authors whose works I admire seem to think so, but that's all I've got to go on. I'm curious, I admit, but not curious enough to spend the kind of money that SubPress's limited edition books seem to cost. Is the original 2009 work that first contained the story available as an ebook?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

From what I hear, Hamlet's Father (the novella that this thread was started about), is blatantly open about it's anti-gay stance. I don't know that for sure, I'm asking for first-hand knowledge/opinions on that. So far, I got nada, zip, bubkis.

You could purchase the book and let us all know.

I'll trust the two review I've read so far. Your mileage my vary.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

You could purchase the book and let us all know.

I thought I covered that.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm curious, I admit, but not curious enough to spend the kind of money that SubPress's limited edition books seem to cost. Is the original 2009 work that first contained the story available as an ebook?

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

As does Subterranean Press Publisher Bill Schafer

From the link provided by jgaiser

Let me first admit that these complaints about the novella have caught us flat-footed, in part because the work is a reprint. The novella had been published before in the 2008 anthology, The Ghost Quartet, edited by Marvin Kaye, published by Tor Books. Subterranean Press has had a fruitful publishing relationship with Orson Scott Card, and anticipated a collector’s edition of the novella would find an audience among his fans. We did not anticipate controversy for republishing a work which had received no controversy prior to our publication, and which remains in print elsewhere.

Like the publisher, I wonder why there wasn't an outcry in 2008 when this was first published.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, because in all those cases those organisations DO things that you disagree with. All Mr. Card seems to have done is to say that he personally disapproves of certain things. There is a fundamental difference. If you're saying that you're not going to buy Mr. Card's books because he doesn't think the same way that you do, aren't you bring just as bigoted as he is?

If my local butcher, baker or candlestick maker held views similar to those of Orson Scott Card, and made a point of publicizing them, I would find somewhere else to buy my meat, bread or...candlesticks. Would that be in some way wrong?

[Quexos]

Why do everybody have to love gays I don't understand that. Nowadays it seems if you don't love gays, you are the black sheep in the herd.
I agree that it is unfair to criminalize them or discriminate them at work or in any other social instance. But if they are free to "associate" against nature, why shouldn't we be free to disagree with them and point out that they go against nature, even though it does not hurt anyone to go against nature provided you are consenting ?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Why do everybody have to love gays I don't understand that. Nowadays it seems if you don't love gays, you are the black sheep in the herd.
I agree that it is unfair to criminalize them or discriminate them at work or in any other social instance. But if they are free to "associate" against nature, why shouldn't we be free to disagree with them and point out that they go against nature, even though it does not hurt anyone to go against nature provided you are consenting ?

I shall assume you are a troll, because if you are not you are disgusting.

[kjk]

I stopped reading (and buying) his books after reading his public views on gays.
He has the right to his opinions. He doesn't have the right to my patronage.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by TGS

If my local butcher, baker or candlestick maker held views similar to those of Orson Scott Card, and made a point of publicizing them, I would find somewhere else to buy my meat, bread or...candlesticks. Would that be in some way wrong?

For me it would be, yes. Voltaire is supposed to have said (but actually didn't) "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". It's the right to say unpopular things that need defending; if you're saying "I'm going to punish you for what you say" then you're effectively suppressing the right to free speech, in my view.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Why do everybody have to love gays I don't understand that. Nowadays it seems if you don't love gays, you are the black sheep in the herd.
I agree that it is unfair to criminalize them or discriminate them at work or in any other social instance. But if they are free to "associate" against nature, why shouldn't we be free to disagree with them and point out that they go against nature, even though it does not hurt anyone to go against nature provided you are consenting ?

There's a huge difference between not loving them and vilifying them.