Orson Scott Card's big-budget adaptation of his classic 1985 sci-fi novel Ender’s Game is scheduled for release on November 1st. Card himself is a co-producer. I've always loved the novel and science fiction in general, but I won't ever pay a single penny to see this film. Instead, I'll wait until it appears at the public library and then borrow it, and watch it for free.
Why? Orson Scott Card is a rabid, vitriolic homophobe.
Card became increasingly militant and vocal in his opposition to marriage equality and gay rights as the same-sex marriage debate advanced in recent years. In 2009 he joined the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, the vanguard of anti-gay marriage groups. The same year he stated in a column for Mormon Times:
“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? What these dictator-judges do not seem to understand is that their authority extends only as far as people choose to obey them. 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. 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."
Other highlights include Card's version of Hamlet in which the titular character's father molests all of Hamlet's friends and turns them all gay.
And then there is Card's statement, made in yet another column, to the effect that being gay is a mental illness: "Same-sex attraction is not a strait jacket; people’s desires change over time; gay people still have choices; a reproductive dysfunction like same-sex attraction is not a death sentence for your DNA or for your desire to have a family in which children grow up with male and female parents to model appropriate gender roles."
I don't care how great the 'Ender's Game' film looks. I can wait a few more months to see it free of charge, courtesy of my local library. It's worth it to keep my money from reaching this hate-monger's pockets and financing his traitorous aims now that he's declared himself to be my enemy.
I love sci-fi but have never cared for Orson Scott Card.
I used to like Card a lot, Ender's Game in particular. Except that the Speaker for the Dead series made me really, really uncomfortable as a Christian--that little girl is taught by her father that "the gods always work in secret". In other words, any time the gods do anything, they do it through a natural agent; so you can prove that something was caused by nature and not the supernatural and she'd still believe it was done by gods. She was made to look delusional and profound at the same time, and it made me worry a little about my faith.
Now, I'm finally starting to realize how uncomfortable I am with Ender's Game itself. The whole message Ender lives out is "kill others before they can hurt you."
Are we now to avoid enjoying art because of the politics of the artist? In that case, let's boycott these artists who've expressed anti-gay sentiments:
Cee-Lo Green (hip hop singer), Chris Brown (hip hop singer), Mel Gibson (actor, director), Victoria Jackson (ex SNL comedienne), Isaiah Green (Gray's Anatomy), Adam Corolla (comedian), Tracy Morgan (ex SNL comedian), 50 Cent (rapper/actor), Donna Summer (soul/disco singer), Blake Shelton (country singer).
Much as I have disdain for Mel Gibson (taking him as an example), he is a great actor (ever seen his Hamlet?) and director (his dazzling Apocalypto is one of the first great movies of the 21st Century).
There were Nazi-sympathetic writers before WWII who we enjoy today for their art. Not that we've forgiven them their politics. P.G. Wodehouse, Ezra Pound, and others, for example.
We should just appreciate their art and not worry about their politics. Obviously, changes are in the air that their dark side can't stop.
Yes, I was once castigated for buying a banana, because in the view of the person I was contributing to the oppression of Latin American banana pickers.
I said "No, actually, I'm just buying a banana."
It's an interesting ethical question. In an open trade, global society, it's awfully difficult to make bright line decisions with respect to commerce. In buying a banana, I'm supporting the local grocer, the Teamsters who delivered the banana, the distributor, the shipping company, the grower and his workers, a couple of insurance companies, probably a commodities trader, and at least three if not more governments collecting excise tax.
In watching a movie, I'm supporting several state governments, a local business, the local utility company, the distributor, the studio, a few thousand people in the movie industry, the author, the executive producers, a whole mess of musicians and contractors, and probably a popcorn grower somewhere.
I wonder how many of them agree with my views on marriage?
I have a lot of trouble with the notion of boycotts designed to help poor people in other countries, unless one can be sure that the majority of those people support the boycott. We need to remember that such boycotts may impact whatever meager income they have and upon which they depend for food and shelter.
So I'm curious, @Gallup.
Do you really think it's OK to deprive someone of their livelihood because you disagree with their viewpoint?
Me personally, I would be ashamed as an employer if I fired someone because they disagreed with my religion, or even with my views on science unless those things were directly relevant to their employment. People should be able to earn a living and practice their particular art or profession without being harassed for their views. Yes, even people whose views we think are noxious.
We can't have freedom of thought or expression if people's livelihood can be taken away for what they happen to think.
I'm not going to enrich the coffers of someone working to deny me equal status under the law because they're offering me a good sci-fi movie. Money is power. Why would I give up my relatively small share of power to an already powerful political opponent--for a good story and a couple of hours escapism? I'm sure I can find other things to occupy myself with, things that don't increase the ability of people who hate me to oppress me. It's not that hard to find good entertainment from artists who aren't engaged in campaigns against civil liberty.
Yes, I avoid giving financial support to Brown, Gibson, Green, Morgan, and Green...even though I enjoy some of their work. I don't go to Walmart either, even though it is sometimes cheaper and more convenient than going to local stores. Really, I don't feel like I'm suffering for having made the choice to involve more than the questions of 'do I want it' and 'is it affordable' in my economic decisions.
That's great if you're a one-topic protester—and I understand why you are—but most of us are not one-topic protesters and if we boycotted everything related to something we don't approve of we'd be doing very little living. There are other ways to support gays.
I'm not a one-topic protester. Didn't you read my post? I don't seek out reasons not to patronize establishments, but if I hear that Hobby Lobby is suing the government so that Hobby Lobby doesn't have to pay for female employee's birth control under the health care act, I'm headed for Hobby Lobby's competition. It's by no means a perfect system of 'voting with your dollar' but that's how I roll.
Well said. Yours sounds like a reasonable reaction to someone who wants to deny you equal rights but still wants your money.
I saw the trailer and had no intention of seeing it anyway.