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

[RedEyedGhost]

(OSC is BY's great-great-grandson)

Yeah, but most mormons can probably claim that :D

[lokisnow]

I don't think Ender's Game is a Hitler apology, despite that rather popular article suggesting it is. Rather, I think Card has a thing with Messianic/Christ figures who have to destroy the world in order to save it, or as Speaker reveals, be willing to die yourself for your cause, in an attempt to have personal sacrifice redeem one's greatest sins. It's actually quite Islamic (note sarcasm. ;)).

If you look at his work you see a consistent fetish of ubermensch martyrs. Wonderful super-genius boys who will be at some point asked to bear a terrible sacrifice in order to fulfill their destiny. And despite Ender being an ubermensch, the Hitler apology still doesn't apply. It's a side effect that it seems like Hitler, Ender is a variation on the Joseph Smith/Book of Mormon male heroes mythology--like all of Card's protagonists are.

Think of Ender (and all of Card's franchise heros) as a non-self-aware Kellhus, every bit as awesome (in the biblical sense) and godlike but the power is dialed back by making a sacrifice that will "show them". On top of everything else, Ender starts an agnostic religion/cult/philosophy that becomes a dominant culture. Joseph Smith, not Hitler.

Perhaps an article comparing Joseph Smith to Hitler would discover some fascinating parallels?

---

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire, Card's weekly column had this gem: did you guys know that Slavery Supporters of the Conferacy are exactly like the evil liberals today who discriminate against people who are anti-gay-marriage?

The South in the decades leading up to the Civil War had become rather like our politically correct society today -- if you uttered even the slightest thought that did not conform with the Only Permitted Opinion, you were severely punished.

Today, that takes the form of getting fired, being called ugly names, or being threatened with various reprisals (just try publicly voicing opposition to gay marriage on any grounds and see what happens to you); in the South before the Civil War, however, the response was often violent -- you could go to jail, be whipped, be lynched, or be driven out of town.

http://www.hatrack.c...011-09-01.shtml

How's THAT for a truly psychopathic logical twist? Opposing Discrimination is like being Pro-Slavery!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Grack,

In saying I don't see the Hitler parallels I'm not defending Card. The article that SerFelix links was a fascinating and damning discussion of the only Card book I really enjoyed Ender's Game. I have to agree with the author of the article. Upon reflection it is fairly manipulative writing. I liked the Alvin Maker series right up until the point I figured out it is the Mormon Story told in the Fantasy US where people can perform magic. That total pulled the rug out from under my enjoyment. I'm not overly fond of author's who use their works as polemics to cram their views of the world down our throats.

[Lummel]

I don't know about Hitler apology but the notion of having a morally and intellectualy superior person taking on to themselves a terrible sacrifice - the full extent of which only they on account of their superior natures can appreciate puts me in mind of the way in which Himmler viewed the SS and in particular those units responsible for running concentration camps.

He regarded his men as ideal people, superior in every way, who would have to undergo this terrible burden for the sake of future generations. Their moral sensitiveity was such that those unfortunate guards who were obliged through the course of their duties to shoot prisoners (for getting too close to the fence or similar) were to be given time off work to recover (time off was also offered in the event of family tragedy such as the death of the family dog, because obviously the aryan superman is more sensitive, indeed inherently capable of more sensitivity than your typical degenerate type).

And naturally their intentions were pure and good as they undertook their hard task.

If you come across a fictional character with the same attitudes and outlook on the world then I think it would be rather natural if you feel suspicious.

Anyhow didn't the mormons go off to salt lake city to avoid violence, I don't recall them responding to their persecution with measured acts of ultraviolence (well not before getting to Utah).

[polishgenius]

To the extent that you mean the "point" is to turn from our own individual sins and errors and throw ourselves on the mercy of Christ, then you might be right. If you mean the "point" is fluffy, fluffy love and acceptance, then...not so much.

The point being Jesus eating with the sinners and tax collectors. The point is 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'. The point is Luke 6: 37-42. Yes, Christians believe being gay (well, actively gay) is a sin, but we believe lots of things are a sin. The point is not to go around preaching hellfire and damnation, it's to live life as an example. And at the root, the whole basis of the religion is forgiveness.

And it's not even consistent because only gay people get nearly the controversy and hatred at this point. You don't see many Christians spitting the same kind of venom on someone who cheats on his wife, or whatever.

[The Real Will]

And just in case you care, OSC's call to arms if (and when) gay marriage is legalized:

http://www.deseretne...e-marriage.html

etaeta:

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.

fucking classic

I wonder, has anyone explained to Card that he does not speak for all married people?

For some reason, whenever these gay marriage debates pop up it's always variations on this argument that rile me the most. Probably because I feel it's so easily answered. Compared to the word of God and centuries old prejudice the suggestion that letting more people get married will somehow cheapen the marriage we've already got seems trivial. Mr. Card, there is not a finite pool of marriage that is held in common a dealt out to the worthy. Gay people will not be stealing your children's share of the marriage, and when your kids are old enough to want some there will be plenty left over for them and their, presumably, heterosexual spouses. Further, if your own marriage only has meaning provided that everyone else's marriage conforms to your own definition then I suspect you're already in trouble.

I also find the etymological argument disingenuous. Especially once he starts to separate the "law" from the "one definition". Bob married Fred is a perfectly legible sentence to anyone who speaks English and the word "married" carries the same definition there as it does in the sentence Cathy married Fred. Further, I would argue that the term "gay marriage" is instantly comprehensible to anyone who understand the words "gay" and "marriage" independently. The definition that may have to change is the legal one, but since Card doesn't care for the "law", that really shouldn't matter to him.

So once we assure Mr. Card that his children will be able to get married, that Thelma and Jane's marriage will have no appreciable impact on his own, and that the current common definition of "marriage" is already broad enough to encompass the union of two members of the same sex, I feel like his mind should be put at rest and we should stop hearing these stupid arguments. And yes, I realise it's all just a smoke screen for either his own bigotry or the religious arguments that he knows carry no legal weight in America, but they're bad smoke screens. If anyone sees Mr. Card, could they pass on my reassurances about his own and his children's marriages? I think it could help a lot.

And to the guys at Subterranean who are genuinely shocked that a book that equates homosexuality with pedophilia is controversial... fuck you guys.

[Lummel]

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.

This is true. I now realise how narrow minded and limited my homophobia is through the exclusion of lesbians.

It's obvious now how the skirt wearing shows how completely the natural God given order of society was turned upside down - that's what happens when the man rejects the natural order of society and listens to a lesbian feminazi. Truely Shakespeares brillance stands for all time.

Now, thanks be to Card, we can understand the true meaning of Henry IV parts one and two as well.

Clearly Falstaff was gay and was tempting Prince Hal through attempted pedophila into a gay lifestyle with alcohol consumption and card playing! But through strength of character Prince Hal is able to reject these sinful urges and become the great warrior King of Henry V.

This clears up alot about the merry wives of windsor too. Falstaffs overtures to the wives turn them in lesbians. And you know what gays and lesbians together mean - yes - adultery! Which is why the wives disrespect the natural authority and priesthood of their husbands. And to think that this burning social commentry used to be regarded as a comedy. Thank Card, that's all there is to say.

[Ormond]

Here's a link to an interesting column and comments page about this book from Publisher's Weekly:

http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/genreville/?p=1498

[SerFelixCulpa]

Here's a link to an interesting column and comments page about this book from Publisher's Weekly:

http://blogs.publish...reville/?p=1498

Thanks for that.

Nothing I had seen gave any clue that the novella had been circulating for that long. I really wish they had left the tempest in the teacup...again, I think the novella is pretty plainly homophobic and literarily bad, but this just gives it a lot more attention than it deserves.

But I guess hyping it up drives page views too...and we're all discussing it aren't we? :dunno:

[Grack21]

And to the guys at Subterranean who are genuinely shocked that a book that equates homosexuality with pedophilia is controversial... fuck you guys.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[Grack21]

Grack,

In saying I don't see the Hitler parallels I'm not defending Card. The article that SerFelix links was a fascinating and damning discussion of the only Card book I really enjoyed Ender's Game. I have to agree with the author of the article. Upon reflection it is fairly manipulative writing. I liked the Alvin Maker series right up until the point I figured out it is the Mormon Story told in the Fantasy US where people can perform magic. That total pulled the rug out from under my enjoyment. I'm not overly fond of author's who use their works as polemics to cram their views of the world down our throats.

Yeah, I apologize if I started getting offensive. I'm not going to go back and read everything I wrote but I probaly said some shit that came out wrong/ I didn't mean. Again, I'm been running on empty this week and some of those I typed out in the library between classes. Plus, as you may have noticed, Card tends to set me off. Again, apologies. (Except to Card. Fuck that guy.)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Grack,

I wasn't offended. Hope your week improves.

[Grack21]

It's all good. We get to read Beowulf in my LIt class. \m/

[TerraPrime]

Re: polishgenius

OSC makes me embarrassed to be a Christian sometimes. But then the whole hating gays thing is easily the most incomprehensible thing about modern Christianity to me. It completely misses the point of the religion.

Well, that's certainly one interpretation of Christianity. I happen to think that Card's interpretation is probably just as valid. Just because one interpretation validates my modernized sensibility with regards to liberty and civil rights it doesn't give that interpretation any more validity than the one I find morally abhorrent. Each variant of Christianity is based on a tradition of interpreting the text in some way, and asserting orthodoxy of ONE interpretation over all others renders the supporter as risible as the RCC.

But, I will say that if we want to talk about the meaning and definition of Christianity in a protracted way, we should move it to the Miscellaneous part of General Chatter.

Re: frodostark

And I'm sorry, but I've not seen any hate from Card; rather, he seems to be pointing out the contradictions between homosexual behavior and the teachings of his church.

I don't know. How would you characterize Card's persistent effort to equate homosexuality and pedophilia? Or about his point that society should not accept homosexuality at all and instead should keep marginalizing gay people in order to protect the rest of society? Those do not come across as hateful to you?

Incidentally, Scott Lynch who, as someone linked earlier, parodied Card's effort to reinvent Hamlet, has posted an essay on this topic. You can find it here:

http://scott-lynch.livejournal.com/266701.html

[sologdin]

these are all dumb reasons to dislike OSC.

the real reason to dislike Card is that his homophobia indicates that he is a closeted homosexual, and, as a homosexual, he is clearly evil.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Ender and Hitler:

http://www.kuro5hin....5/28/22428/7034

http://peachfront.di...nderhitlte.html

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

On the Gays:

http://www.ornery.or...04-02-15-1.html

http://www.nauvoo.co...hypocrites.html

Alvin Maker as Joseph Smith:

http://www.hatrack.c...n-mallory.shtml

Manhole,

Mormonism is a crazy fucking religion. One steeped in insanity (the belief of godhood after death), bigotry ('colored's' not being able to hold any position in the church until the late 20th century), misogyny (the idea that women cannot ascend to 'godhood' unless 'called' by their mates) and hate (fuck it, too many to list). It's hard for me to believe that someone as entrenched in the faith (OSC is BY's great-great-grandson) does not secretly hold these ideals to be true.

Not only is it hard to believe, but he comes out and spreads the shit.

The guy is a fucking nut bag, and if your reading pleasure isn't tainted by giving a fucking hatful shitbag money, you have some great blinders on. Vote with your pocket book on this one. Ban this fucking loony toon's works. They aren't all that well written, and only serve to make a fucking asshat feel like he has a forum to actually say something.

First off, I don't think the Ender/Hitler Apologist argument holds water. Pretty solid example of a Godwin. To compare Ender's Genocide to the Holocaust is an insult to Holocaust victims.

Even speaking from a position of ignorance, I tend to agree with your assessment of Mormonism. I would expand on that to say that I find all forms of Christianity to be more or less equally ridiculous. It is the penultimate pipe dream as far as I'm concerned.

That being said, I believe it's shortsighted to dismiss the value of a work of fiction simply because it is an allegory for an otherwise silly religion. This is Fantasy we are discussing. Like any other myth, the Bible is chock full of entertaining parables. I wouldn't try and steer a young reader away from the Bible simply because I don't buy into the overall message.

I must admit that you did strike a chord with the last bit regarding personal responsibility. As a citizen of California I saw an incredible amount of hypocrisy and money spent by The Church of LDS in opposition to Prop 8. The idea that any of my money was sunk into that retarded campaign does not sit well with me.

[sologdin]

solid example of a Godwin

it's not a good argument, but it's not godwin, either.

To compare Ender's Genocide to the Holocaust is an insult to Holocaust victims.

considering that the xenocide is worse than the shoah, i'm not really seeing this point. (and, really, the "thesis A insults person B" is kinda wussy.)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

To compare Ender's Genocide to the Holocaust is an insult to Holocaust victims.

considering that the xenocide is worse than the shoah, i'm not really seeing this point. (and, really, the "thesis A insults person B" is kinda wussy.)

A fictional xenocide is worse than the Holocaust?

And it may be wussy, but it's true.

[sologdin]

fictional xenocide

is that a distinction worth making?

but it's true.

allow me to rephrase: it's an example of argumentum ad consequentiam. it may well be a true statement that someone is insulted by the comparison, but that in itself fails to refute the comparison.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Oops. Mispost.