Orson Scott Card 'updates' Hamlet For Modern Sensibilites, Hilarity Ensues

[Rubies & Jade]

Pretty sure he went off the deep end a long long time ago.

this.

and my multi-quote doesn't seem to be working, but if Subterranean Press didn't expect to catch some flack then they are morons too. surely they are just using the controversy for some kinda "even bad press is good press" kinda idea.

[Grack21]

Annnd the internet ate my post. Suffice to say I agree with that article, and things OSC has said interviews support it. Also let it be said I used to love the hell out of Ender's Game when I was younger, so I'm not innocent in these matters either.

[Lummel]

So judging by that article I suppose its fair to say that for the man who writes a book about a Christ figure killing all the space-homosexuals rewriting Shakespeare is pretty small beer.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SerFelix,

Thank you for that link. The article was fascinating. Particularly with the 2009 post script.

Lummel,

In fairness I don't believe Card ever called the "Buggers" evil. Given the fact that he resurrects them suggests he doesn't think they are evil.

[Sci-2]

Does anybody even read Card anymore? Funny thing is without his political screed the man has lost any sense of talent. I haven't read a good review of a Card book of any kind in years unless it was supporting his politics and not his writing ability.

[SerFelixCulpa]

In fairness I don't believe Card ever called the "Buggers" evil. Given the fact that he resurrects them suggests he doesn't think they are evil.

I think OSC went to pains to show the Buggers were not evil. This sort of fits in his point about intent being the sole criterion for judging morality: they themselves never had any "evil" intent in attacking humanity and ceased attack the minute they realized it had all been a misunderstanding. And yes, it would be odd if the perfectly and infallibly moral Ender spent a good deal of his remaining life both "speaking" for and trying to reestablish an evil species.

In this sense, the Buggers to me are (whether intended by OSC to be or not) morally superior to humanity: their only "mistake" was a factual/biological one, i.e., not recognizing humanity as an intelligent species until after attacking. I rather think this is intentional on his part as part of his project: to have his protagonist not only commit justifiable xenocide, but also against an arguably morally superior species...one that even pre-emptively forgives Ender himself for the xenocide!

It's a fascinating point, which I think is why a lot of people love Ender's Game. The notion that intent is the *only* relevant criterion for actions is so obviously false I don't think anyone here (?) wants to discuss it, but it's an interesting falsehood. Oftentimes they lead you to more productive places than uninteresting truths.

I am mostly saddened by OSC's decline...in large part because his intent in so declining is now irrelevant. ;)

[Parris]

Pretty sure he went off the deep end a long long time ago.

Here:

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

copyrighted 1990.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Parris,

Hmmmmm... That was quite some time ago.

[Sci-2]

I think it was Catherynne Valente (or Hal Duncan?) who said in response to John C. Wright's screed of similar lunatic proportions, the big conspiracy of the "feminazis" and "gay agenda" was the desire to be treated as human.

Card's statement that homosexuality and Mormonism don't mix makes sense if one believes a religion is defined by literal interpretation of its scripture. My problem is his newer insanity that links homosexuality and pedophilia, especially male homosexuality.

A far better statistical argument, though equally fallacious, would be to suggest heterosexual men have some predisposition toward rape. But then we know only sluts get raped so we should not worry about that kind of thing too much...Sarcasm aside, I am now remembering Card wishing for the days when we would cast shame on women having children out of wedlock while bemoaning abortion...

ETA: There is also the simple truth that Card was never very talented. One book, Ender's Game, great YA novel, seems to be his sole achievement.

[TerraPrime]

I think Grack21 was probably getting at the points made in this article:

http://www4.ncsu.edu.../Killer_000.htm

Thanks for the link. A very interesting dissection of the themes.

[ambyr]

ETA: There is also the simple truth that Card was never very talented. One book, Ender's Game, great YA novel, seems to be his sole achievement.

In defense of Card (words that leave a feeling of distaste in my mouth!), he has IMO written a number of good short stories.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

In defense of Card (words that leave a feeling of distaste in my mouth!), he has IMO written a number of good short stories.

I've always enjoyed his Alvin Maker stuff as well. Particularly the first 4 books. Interesting Historical Fantasy.

[SerFelixCulpa]

You know, you don't have to politically, philosophically, or spiritually agree with OSC to like...even love...some of his work. The new Hamlet thing, regrettably, is an unmistakable sign he has lost whatever perspective he once possessed. But Ender's Game is actually a good book. OSC wrote a lot of other good ones. (I have always been rather fond of The Worthing Saga myself.) You need not take your like of these things as rubber-stamping any agenda within them or any other beliefs OSC may have.

Example: I absolutely love a lot of Jerry Pournelle despite the fact I consider him to be a political reptile. I have reread Falkenberg's Legion a dozen times over the years despite the fact that I have serious reservations about its obvious intended implications. Nonetheless, it's a fascinating story (and story universe), well written, and coherent. It doesn't hurt of course that it also all became more or less obsolete within a couple of decades of its writing because it turns out Pournelle did not correctly predict political outcomes -- I'm sure he has a host of theories to explain that...and yet I still love it. ;)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

You know, you don't have to politically, philosophically, or spiritually agree with OSC to like...even love...some of his work. The new Hamlet thing, regrettably, is an unmistakable sign he has lost whatever perspective he once possessed. But Ender's Game is actually a good book. OSC wrote a lot of other good ones. (I have always been rather fond of The Worthing Saga myself.) You need not take your like of these things as rubber-stamping any agenda within them or any other beliefs OSC may have.

Example: I absolutely love a lot of Jerry Pournelle despite the fact I consider him to be a political reptile. I have reread Falkenberg's Legion a dozen times over the years despite the fact that I have serious reservations about its obvious intended implications. Nonetheless, it's a fascinating story (and story universe), well written, and coherent. It doesn't hurt of course that it also all became more or less obsolete within a couple of decades of its writing because it turns out Pournelle did not correctly predict political outcomes -- I'm sure he has a host of theories to explain that...and yet I still love it. ;)

Couldn't agree more. I could really give a hairy rat's ass regarding a writer's politics or social views just as long as he/she entertains.

[TerraPrime]

You know, you don't have to politically, philosophically, or spiritually agree with OSC to like...even love...some of his work. The new Hamlet thing, regrettably, is an unmistakable sign he has lost whatever perspective he once possessed. But Ender's Game is actually a good book. OSC wrote a lot of other good ones. (I have always been rather fond of The Worthing Saga myself.) You need not take your like of these things as rubber-stamping any agenda within them or any other beliefs OSC may have.

I agree that enjoying the fictional work of an author is not automatically a stamp of approval for his/her specific political agenda. For instance, politically conservative people (U.S. standard here) who enjoy ASOIAF can do so without having to agree with GRRM's stance on, say, Vietnam or Iraq. Entirely possible.

However, authors rely on sales to earn money. The money I put towards purchasing his/her work go, directly, to profitting that author. As a consumer, I am well within my rights to withold my economic support from someone, or some company, whose actions or beliefs I find abhorrent. For instance, I refused to patronize Cracker Barrel because of their history of anti-gay discrimination against their employees.

Of course, there's a lot of room between "I don't agree with his/her politics" and "his/her political/moral views are so repugnant that I cannot in good conscience enjoy reading his/her work." And the expand of that space between those 2 points will vary from reader to reader. Some might be more capable of separating the politics of the author from the enjoyment of their work, while others might be less inclined to do so.

Another dimension of the issue is when the politics of the author bleeds over to the work they produce, e.g. Pullman's "His Dark Material". Or, in some cases, the political and/or moral message became the entirety of the work, e.g. Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Or, more topically, like Card's butchering of "Hamlet." Then it becomes quite clear that supporting these publications are indeed the same as supporting the politics of these authors.

[sologdin]

Anthony & Cleopatra. Well Anthony is gay obviously, which is why Cleopatra kills herself and why they get beaten by Octavian.

Macbeth. Macbeth is gay which is why he wears a skirt. And also why he kills.

Henry V. The Lords and Bishops tell Henry to forget all this salic law business - the King of France is gay and he's turned his whole army gay - victory is assured! Cry havoc and let slip the gaydar of war!

Othello. Iago tricks Cassio into telling Othello that Desdamona thinks he's gay so he has to kill her.

nice. some further:

titus androgynous: aaron is a gay moor. and therefore eviiil.

the merchant of penis: shylock is a gay jew. and therefore eviiiil.

king queer: daughters are incestuous lesbians. and therefore eviiiil.

cornholeanus: eponymous hero is gay. and therefore eviiiiiil.

[SerFelixCulpa]

Another dimension of the issue is when the politics of the author bleeds over to the work they produce, e.g. Pullman's "His Dark Material". Or, in some cases, the political and/or moral message became the entirety of the work, e.g. Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Or, more topically, like Card's butchering of "Hamlet." Then it becomes quite clear that supporting these publications are indeed the same as supporting the politics of these authors.

I agree where polemics and/or proselytizing have become the sine qua non of the work...in other words where ideology trumps everything including plot, characterization, and even writing style...then it is better not to support the author in any way. But this to me is equivalent to saying that it becomes incumbent not to read an author when the work has become pure hackery.

I don't mind the politics or outlook of the author bleeding into the work on some level. I think OSC himself was even onto something noting that this will happen inevitably even if the author tries not to let such things bleed in. From a literary standpoint though, I am often content to read authors with which I disagree as long as there is merit in the writing and presentation. It is when an author loses perspective entirely -- when a book becomes the literary equivalent of a Chick Tract -- that it becomes incumbent to no longer read it. Goodkind reached that point a few books into SoT, though you could see it coming even earlier on. Pullman by contrast never reached it except for people who simply assume that anything that treats atheism in a good light must by definition be evil. Which is by definition having lost perspective. ;)

I also believe it is incumbent on people of good faith to be careful making this determination. As an example: too often lately, I have seen my aging mother...who denies being a member of the "Tea Party" at the same time she savagely attacks anyone criticizing it...claim she is merely using the right of "patronage" when she refuses to see anything Robin Williams is in because he is a "liberal," and therefore, not worth listening to in any guise. (We could substitute a thousand other names in there of course, I just remember asking her if she had seen something which he did years ago and her responding she hadn't and wouldn't for those reasons.) I just think that level of political insularity from anything which you even associate with the "other" serves to ensure everything you read/watch/consider will become a Chick Tract. Or if you prefer, a sub-standard and hackneyed retelling of Hamlet. ;)

[Grack21]

I've always enjoyed his Alvin Maker stuff as well. Particularly the first 4 books. Interesting Historical Fantasy.

Yeah...I don't know if you could label that "historical". Allegoric maybe. It's pretty much the life of John Smith, but less well written :P

[Grack21]

Couldn't agree more. I could really give a hairy rat's ass regarding a writer's politics or social views just as long as he/she entertains.

Oh please. That only works if a great majority of an authors work isn't constantly showing his repulsive ideas down your throat.

[TerraPrime]

nice. some further:

titus androgynous: aaron is a gay moor. and therefore eviiil.

the merchant of penis: shylock is a gay jew. and therefore eviiiil.

king queer: daughters are incestuous lesbians. and therefore eviiiil.

cornholeanus: eponymous hero is gay. and therefore eviiiiiil.

What's with the sexism here. No lesbians to be blamed? How chauvinistic of your anti-homosexual antipathy.

To wit:

Macbeth is not gay, even if he wears a skirt. Rather, the 3 witches are lesbians hellbent on destroying the proper order of a male-dominated family structure which is central to civilization. Their sexual deviance is what causes the whole tragedy, as they seduce and corrupt Macbeth's wife into believing in feminism. They were the feminazis before they had Nazis.