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

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I don't particularly like either of them. Rowling is just greedy, and I don't buy the "has to protect her IP argument." There are a hundred unofficial Star Wars and Star Trek things out there, and nobody has lost their IP rights in those cases.

Card is worse, a traitor. He advocates violent revolution if he doesn't get his way on gay marriage:

"How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn." (Mormon Times, Thursday, Jul. 24, 2008)

Bigots are bad enough, but one who tell us that if their bigotry isn't consistently enacted into law he'll try to tear down the American government? It wouldn't be American to censor him, but I certainly am not going to buy his books and I'll put him in the same moral camp as Bin Laden.

You took his words out of context. They're bad enough in context; there is no need to twist them.
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/?id=3237

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You took his words out of context. They're bad enough in context; there is no need to twist them.
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/?id=3237

And as for what he asks, the answer is: never. Most people don't care about it that much.

[Andurian]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You took his words out of context. They're bad enough in context; there is no need to twist them.
http://www.mormontimes.com/mormon_voices/?id=3237

I'm at work and can't post links, just cut and paste text, which is why I posted the source and date. That said, aside from the fact I didn't post the entire article, please explain to me how a lack of context makes what I posted easy to misinterpret. If anything the text I ommitted makes it clear that it really is *his* "answer thus" and not that of someone else.

Certainly an accusation that I've "twisted" his words is offensive and inaccurate. Are you often like this?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I'm at work and can't post links, just cut and paste text, which is why I posted the source and date. That said, aside from the fact I didn't post the entire article, please explain to me how a lack of context makes what I posted easy to misinterpret. If anything the text I ommitted makes it clear that it really is *his* "answer thus" and not that of someone else.

Certainly an accusation that I've "twisted" his words is offensive and inaccurate. Are you often like this?

You called him a traitor, but he does not say that violent rebellion _should_ occur, nor does he tell the reader to start one. A better summary would be that he thinks one might happen. This is not the same thing.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Andurian

I'm at work and can't post links, just cut and paste text, which is why I posted the source and date. That said, aside from the fact I didn't post the entire article, please explain to me how a lack of context makes what I posted easy to misinterpret. If anything the text I ommitted makes it clear that it really is *his* "answer thus" and not that of someone else.

Certainly an accusation that I've "twisted" his words is offensive and inaccurate. Are you often like this?

He's right, they were taken out of context. He's freaking out that the state government wanted to allow it without any kind of vote and against public opinion.

Still horrifying though.

I'd like to comment on his comments on man-woman marriage and that some marriages disintegrate because of malfeasance from one of the couple, but then I'll just get super duper angry and will want to hurt people.

SOOOoooooo before we get in any arguments, I'll just say that its so sad, JK, like Martha, could pretty much do anything and I'd still love her.

At least she donates lots of her money. For that, I'll let it slide that she's greedy. Hell, I'm greedy too

[Andybaby]

I think it comes down to this.

If she wants to write a book like this, then she has the right to take this novel off the presses, but she doesnt as far as I know, and until she does this novel should stand.

This book would not Interfere with sales of her novels so I think as long as this is true she shouldnt have any objections to this.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

I think it comes down to this.

If she wants to write a book like this, then she has the right to take this novel off the presses, but she doesnt as far as I know, and until she does this novel should stand.

This book would not Interfere with sales of her novels so I think as long as this is true she shouldnt have any objections to this.

True, but the work as published consisted mostly of her words. There wasn't enough added to qualify as fair use.

[Andurian]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You called him a traitor, but he does not say that violent rebellion _should_ occur, nor does he tell the reader to start one. A better summary would be that he thinks one might happen. This is not the same thing.

""You took his words out of context. They're bad enough in context; there is no need to twist them."

My lack of context is certainly not responsible for me calling him a traitor. In fact, the *lack* of context fails to support him being called a traitor compared to a reading of the entire article. I certainly can't see any way in which failing to include wonderful quotes like the following did anything other than *weaken* a case that his position is traitorous:

"Why should married people feel the slightest loyalty to a government or society that are conspiring to encourage reproductive and/or marital dysfunction in their children?

Why should married people tolerate the interference of such a government or society in their family life?

If America becomes a place where our children are taken from us by law and forced to attend schools where they are taught that cohabitation is as good as marriage, that motherhood doesn't require a husband or father, and that homosexuality is as valid a choice as heterosexuality for their future lives, then why in the world should married people continue to accept the authority of such a government?"

"Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die."

That would be the material immediately preceding and following what I posted earlier. Material which provides arguments for *why* we might/should reject the government's authority.

Now, you might read his diatribe and conclude he's not a traitor, rather that he's saying that someone else (who, oddly, has the exact same world view and motivations as him) might rebel. I'd find that an odd interpretation, but whatever. But to accuse me of intentionally omitting context that *supports* seeing him as a traitor in order to twist the text into painting him as a traitor is just plain ridicuous and insulting.

[Nate the great]

When read as a whole the essay is over the top. Mr. Card is a subtle and skilled writer, and the essay was incredibly inflammatory. It is very likely that he did not intend it to be taken literally.

That is what I see as the context of the essay.To leave out the rest of the essay does twist the meaning of the quoted passage.


Plus, you dug up a 7 month dead thread with a post that was entirely off topic and did not have a link to the source of the quote. You created a situation where one has to consider your intentions. It looked like your intention was to be malicious. That is why I responded the way I did.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

True, but the work as published consisted mostly of her words. There wasn't enough added to qualify as fair use.

the laws of copyright is flawed in my opinion. If you take my book, lets call it, Peaches Are Good, and apples suck.

Obvious Stealing would be the novel
apples Are Good, and peaches suck.

but a novel referencing all the reasons I liked peaches, and why i dont like apples i think is fair game, unless i want to write this novel myself, and at anytime i should be able to beat out the other author.

I dont think you should be able to copyright the color blue.
and dont get me started on patents, which is exactly 100x worse cause you dont even have to "write the book" in order to sue someone saying you stole my idea (of course writing doesnt have patents though)

[nekokami]

I've been a fan of Card's since the short story "Songhouse" and the subsequent novel Songmaster (which, oddly enough, featured a sympathetically portrayed gay male character). But I do find his current non-fiction writings a bit hard to stomach.

As for Rowling's lawsuit, I originally thought it was over the top, but as I now understand it, even Steve Van der Ark didn't intend to publish the book as it finally went to press-- a list of uncited quotations. It looks like his publisher was trying to make a fast buck using his name (as the author/maintainer of the HP Lexicon website). An unfortunate business all around.

[Andurian]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

When read as a whole the essay is over the top. Mr. Card is a subtle and skilled writer, and the essay was incredibly inflammatory. It is very likely that he did not intend it to be taken literally.

That is what I see as the context of the essay.To leave out the rest of the essay does twist the meaning of the quoted passage.


Plus, you dug up a 7 month dead thread with a post that was entirely off topic and did not have a link to the source of the quote. You created a situation where one has to consider your intentions. It looked like your intention was to be malicious. That is why I responded the way I did.

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.

As for digging up a 7 month dead thread, it was linked to (in the similar threads list below) by a review of a Card novel that was posted today. And if you read back through the succession of posts, a good number contain little more than statements of like or dislike for Card or Rowling for one reason or another, and I'm not sure I'm any more off topic than them. Perhaps my responding to your flames is, but when I'm unfairly attacked, I feel the need to respond.

[Andybaby]

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.

As for digging up a 7 month dead thread, it was linked to (in the similar threads list below) by a review of a Card novel that was posted today. And if you read back through the succession of posts, a good number contain little more than statements of like or dislike for Card or Rowling for one reason or another, and I'm not sure I'm any more off topic than them. Perhaps my responding to your flames is, but when I'm unfairly attacked, I feel the need to respond.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...94&postcount=3
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...28&postcount=5

Hes not the only one with that Opinion.

[Halo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's exactly what happened to trademarks like "aspirin" in the USA - the trademark holder failed to take someone to court who marketed their own make of acetylsalicylic acid (that's what aspirin is) under the name "aspirin", and the trademark holder lost the rights to the name as a result.

That's not what happened at all. Aspirin lost trademark status in the US, France, UK, and Russia at the end of World War I as part of the Treaty of Versailles.

[Andurian]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...94&postcount=3
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...28&postcount=5

Hes not the only one with that Opinion.

It amazes me that people like him as an author, so they assume he can't be evil.

Check out:

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html

and

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-hypocrites.html

which are earlier diatribes of his against homosexuals, homosexuality, and tolerance of homosexuality by society.