What's a girl to do? Years ago I was introduced to an author I had never heard of before by a group of students. We got into a discussion of favorite reads and they were flabbergasted that I had not read nor heard of Orson Scott Card's
Ender's Game. While I didn't run right out to the bookstore to pick up my very own copy, the name stuck in the back of my head and, after months of student torment, my husband and I decided to dive in.
We loved the book. We've been looking forward to
this year's movie adaptation of the story. We continued reading Card's works; my husband has even found a short story of his that he wants to use in his teaching. We never stopped to explore Orson Scott Card, the man.
About a year ago I found my first clue that there was something to know. I read a comment from someone online declaring that they would not read
Ender's Game on principle. They did not want to support a man such as Orson Scott Card. I brought this to the attention of my husband. We both found it curious, but felt there wasn't too much we could do about it since we already read/purchased his books without knowing. Last night, spurred on by the recent
The Adventures of Superman reboot controversy, we had a long talk about it.
What's The Issue?
In a
Salon.com article discussing the recent media attention around DC's decision to bring Orson Scott Card on as a writer in its new
Superman reboot, it was explained as follows:
The “Ender’s Game” author is a current board member of the right-wing
National Organization for Marriage and has a long personal history of
anti-gay remarks. In a 2012 editorial for the Mormon Times, Card argued
that “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.” In a 1990 opinion piece for
Sunstone magazine, Card wrote that laws criminalizing homosexuality
should stay on the books “to be used when necessary to send a clear
message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual
behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens
within that society.”
I couldn't disagree with this man more. In fact, I find his remarks offensive and, quite frankly, a bit scary. Orson Scott Card and I would get into a number of heated, emotional debates if we were ever to sit down and have a cup of coffee. I can fully understand why people would elect not to read any of his stuff or support him in any way based on these beliefs. However, in the stories of his that I read, none of these beliefs were evident. His writing (at least fiction writing) did not appear to preach in any way to the audience it was intended for - which, based on how vocal he is about these beliefs everywhere else, is quite surprising.
My Conundrum
My husband and I genuinely enjoy Card's fiction writing.
I don't think I would be speaking out of turn if I said Card has become one of my husband's favorite authors over the years. However, we, like many others, disagree with his personal beliefs. Is this enough to stay our hand when another of his works is published?
Should it be enough?
For years I wrote on my blog
Searching for Sustenance about the power of the dollar, about how we, as consumers vote with our purchases every day. We tell the world what we believe in by carefully selecting where we spend our money. It is a philosophy I believe in living in this capitalist society. I have never found a place where I have come to second guess it until now. Does this still work in the arts?
Voting With My Dollar
In terms of food, I spend my money on organics,
non-GMO, and
certified humane foods because I want the industry to know these are the things I value in my food products. In electronics and appliances, I look to purchase those items that consume the least amount of energy. In energy distribution I look for the providers that use a greater proportion of renewable energy sources. All of these choices are made with my thinking about the product(s) I receive. However, they also speak to the philosophy of the companies that provide them.
What does one do in the case of the arts, when the product could easily be separate from the producer? I set out to spend my money on a creation I appreciate. I want to show the world that
this is the type of thing I would like to entertain myself with. Yet, to do so, I must hand over my money to a producer who may use that money to fund an assault against my personal belief system. This person may use my money to battle ME!
Final Thoughts
I am at a crossroads. I'm not sure what my answer is so far except to say I am still looking forward to the movie adaptation of
Ender's Game. I believe I will go see it when it is released, but I am suddenly thinking twice about something that was a given for a long time. I need more time with this.
Finally, I am left in a quandary over how I think DC should handle this entire situation. They have safely separated themselves from Card's belief system in
their statement to The Advocate when initially addressing the controversy back in February:
“As content creators we steadfastly support freedom of expression,
however the personal views of individuals associated with DC Comics are
just that — personal views — and not those of the company itself.”
Right now the project has been delayed since the artist hired to work with Card,
Chris Sprouse, announced he would be leaving the project. Is this the final straw for DC to push Card out? I understand that they have to make a decision based on how much money they will pull in from their books, so, if they let Card go based on the belief that having him write the story will be controversial enough to decrease sales (or halt production completely), then that makes sense. On the other hand, if they let him go solely because of his beliefs, isn't that a form of discrimination itself?
What are your thoughts about this?
Should DC put their full support behind Orson Scott Card?
Would you halt purchasing an artist's works if their personal philosophies conflict with your own?
Thanks for reading!
___________
UPDATE:
My husband found a fantastic published on
Salon.com today entitled
What happened to Orson Scott Card? written by
Steven Llyod Wilson, an
Ender's Game fan. This excerpt is my favorite:
There are some in the comics world who are really angry about the
events, arguing that this is an instance of judging the artist instead
of his art. Of not letting a gifted storyteller tell a story because of
people disliking his politics. If the story he wrote for Superman has
nothing to do with gays, then what does it matter, the argument goes.
The problem is that there is no separation of the artist from the art.
And when that art in question is a figure of the cultural significance
of Superman, the choice of who gets to put words in that mouth is about
more than a literal reading of whatever script he turned in. How do you
reconcile the symbol of truth, justice, and the American way being
written by someone who loudly proclaims a violent revolution to topple
American democracy if the majority doesn’t agree with his opinions?
Check out the rest of the article for Llyod's appraisal of where some of Card's politics may have been evident in his most famous work.
___
Here are
three responses to this post from around the Internet.
and I'd Rather Not Be Dead
had the following to say about Card's beliefs and her response to them on Google+:
