comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Thank You?

Orson Scott Card Responds to Call for Ender’s Game Boycott


This is not a good year to be a company whose high-profile Orson Scott Card-affiliated project is coming to fruition. And this past month was not particularly a good one for folks who’ve been on the board of the U.S.’s biggest national anti-marriage equality lobbying group since 2009. The ethics of enjoying content related to or produced by someone who shares political views you are opposed can be uncomfortable enough without the added conflict of active participation and monetary support at very senior and organized levels of a powerful organization working at cross purposes to your political views. Summit Entertainment has been rumored to already be nervous about the backlash against its summer blockbuster Ender’s Game, based on Card’s seminal YA science fiction novel of the same name, and it’s hard not to see some studio pressure behind Card’s response (it cannot be called an apology) to well worded calls for a boycott of the movie.

As usual for this issue, I except a number of the readers of this article will not be familiar with Card’s activism, so I’ll quote myself from an earlier post:

Card’s status as a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, one of the largest and most well funded anti-gay activist groups in America, which works to prevent not only marriage equality but also civil union legislation and to legally prevent LGBTQ couples from adopting, is for many, including this writer, a different beast than mere personally held conservative views that might enter the subtext of a story or be voiced, when asked, by a writer or artist. Card has publicly expressed his views on gay marriage as worth overthrowing the government for, linked homosexuality with pedophilia, argued that marriage equality will lead to a world where parents who encourage their kids to date members of the opposite sex will be accused of hate speech, and has stated that he would prefer laws that criminalize consensual homosexual sex to stand and be enforced as a “message.” His presence on the board of NOM gives him more power to actually effect his opinions on others than your average celebrity with socially conservative political leanings.

In that context, I offer you his response to Geeks Out’s proposed boycott of Ender’s Game:

Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984.

With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot.  The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state.

Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

I don’t normally do this kind of thing, but lets go through this point by point. Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and was clearly not written as a text that deconstructed the political issues of LGBTQ equality and visibility that were absolutely present in the public consciousness in 1984. Come on. The Stonewall Riots were fifteen years old that year, and AIDS had only just been renamed from the “Gay Related Immune Deficiency” syndrome two years prior.

With the Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot, because we all know that since the Supreme Court decided that women in the U.S. have the right to elective abortions forty years ago, no state has ever tried to limit or qualify access to them.

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Okay, there’s a statement that I can actually agree with in its entirety. Naturally, it’s followed up by probably the most teeth grindingly awful part of Card’s statement: Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.

The unavoidable implication here is that Card considers that someone who chooses not to see his movie because they disagree with his politics to be intolerant, so lets be clear: no one is required to “tolerate” the attempts of other people to prevent them from doing a thing that harms no one. “Tolerate my intolerance” is not a valid request. If Card has perhaps apologized for his work to prevent LGBTQ families from gaining legal status under the law, this might be a different story, but what he’s actually asking is: “Hey, you just fought a long, protracted battle to get legal recognition of inalienable rights that were denied to you by, in many cases, an unfeeling majority, one that I tried to make as difficult as possible. I still think you deserve to be second class citizens, but I just lost that fight, so as a consolation prize could you go support my work anyway?”

I’m not here to argue whether anyone should spend money on the Ender’s Game movie or not. I firmly believe both that it is okay to enjoy media with problematic aspects so long as you acknowledge, explore, and do not attempt to justify those problematic aspects, and that the amount of enjoyment one can derive from something that was made by somebody with views they disagree with is different for every person. But I can say this: if you do disagree with Card’s activism and plan to purposefully see Ender’s Game, I suggest you do it according to any or all of the precepts laid out in Alyssa Rosenberg‘s great Ethical Guide to Consuming Content. If you plan to purposefully not see Ender’s Game because of Card’s activism, I suggest you do so in an organized, vocal fashion: talk to your friends about it, talk about it on social media, maybe even coordinate with the Geeks Out campaign.

TAGS: | |


  • http://www.facebook.com/nuuni.nuunani Nuuni Nuunani

    As someone who didn’t like any of Card’s writings even before I found out about his politics, im not exactly sold on seeing it after that statement which bleeds of desperation. Heck, if the reception towards this film is anything like the reaction towards him doing that Superman comic…I will be amazed if this film even makes its return.

  • Anonymous

    I didn’t have any interest in it in the first place, so I’m going to pretend I’m boycotting it.

  • Anonymous

    I’m atheist. If I were to only see movies that are wholly written, directed, and starred by atheists, I wouldn’t be seeing any movies at all. So while I disagree with all theists of any variety, just like I disagree with Orson Scott Card on his stance on gay marriage, I’ll still see the movie.

  • Jamie Jeans

    Pretty much what you said. OSC is exercising his free speech in being a bigoted underwear streaked stain on humanity, and we are exercising our free speech in saying we won’t see his garbage, regardless of its material.

  • Emma Lawson

    Unrelated, can we stop using words like “seminal” on a feminist site?

  • http://elisabethflaum.wordpress.com/ Elwyne

    Methinks Mr. Card misses the point.
    The content and context of the film and book are irrelevant. We don’t want the money we pay for entertainment to support the sort of organization that he supports. If he were to dissociate from said organization, given that their purpose for being is in his words ‘moot,’ then perhaps our concern would be mollified.
    Mr. Card, I don’t care about what you think or believe or even what you do with your own personal money. I simply don’t want my money to be a part of it.

  • http://elisabethflaum.wordpress.com/ Elwyne

    Opinions, beliefs, stances are all irrelevant. The point is, as always, money. Card’s personal money supports anti-gay activism. When you buy Card’s stuff, your money becomes his money, and supports anti-gay activism. You are still entitled to not care, just be fully aware of what you’re not caring about.

  • delia

    as the article above stated, there’s a difference between seeing/supporting the work of someone with whom you disagree on one or several issues, and seeing/supporting the work of someone who will use some of that cash to actively lobby to limit your rights or the rights of others. perhaps if there was a movie created by a theist who was also a board member of a lobbying group that was attempting to limit your legal rights, you could draw an effective parallel.

    you are of course fully entitled to not be bothered by this and go see the movie anyway, i just wanted to point out that you are drawing a false comparison.

  • Anonymous

    I think there is a difference between being a theist, and engaging in activism that promotes your religion or political agenda and attempts to force it on others. Just not being like me isn’t a problem, that’s great, that’s diversity. But trying to force me to be like you, not okay.

  • Anonymous

    And if the director of a movie is Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Scientologist, money spent on that movie goes to the director, who then spends his money supporting organizations I disagree with. Same thing with writers, starring actors, or anyone employed by the studio. The movie ITSELF isn’t anti-gay. If it was, I wouldn’t support it. But it isn’t as far as I’m aware so I’ll probably see it eventually.

  • http://brightblueink.net/ Inky

    Honestly, I didn’t plan to see this movie anyway because I really, really disliked the original book–but I think my boyfriend has been excited about it, so I maybe would’ve considered seeing the movie with him if he asked.

    But after seeing Card’s reaction? Nuh-uh, man. No way. I grew up in a conservative Christian home, I know that if this was a movie where it was known funds would be going toward political activism to support gay marriage there’d be plenty of people in my former churches who would’ve decided not to go to see the film, and it would’ve been within their rights to do so (in fact I distinctly recall many of my friends refusing to go see Disney movies around when Hercules came out, partially because of the ‘Gay Days’ thing). For Card to imply that NOT going to see his film is intolerant just comes across as self-centered and hypocritical.

    So forget it. Not going to see this movie, which I probably wouldn’t have enjoyed anyway. If my boyfriend wants to go, he can go with some other friends.

  • Deggsy

    Personally, I think it’s gonna bomb coz the non-nerds will just see it as some mash-up rip-off of Hunger Games and Starship Troopers.
    As for his response – “Look, you liberal pansy abominations have won, okay? Now just go see the movie.” Well… how about “No”?

  • http://brightblueink.net/ Inky

    Honestly, I’ve heard really similar things from Christians. I think most of them assume everyone in Hollywood is an Atheist. Or maybe Buddhist.

  • Anonymous

    Everyone’s acting as if OSC is the only person making money off this movie. If you look at all the profits from all the people involved in making this movie, including the studio itself, is there a negative net-gain or net-loss in terms of money contributed towards the gay rights cause? I don’t know the answer, but it’s just one person making money off the movie, and I’d venture a guess that it’s not even the person making the most money.

  • Anonymous

    Most theists donate to their church, temple, mosque, or whatever. That’s activism promoting their religion and that religion’s political agenda to me.

  • The Gaf

    You should be ok with anything made by Jews- we don’t proselytize. :D

  • Anonymous

    In all fairness, I was never interested in the project in the first place so my opinon on the topic isn’t that important.

    Still, I do believe there is a difference between boycotting an author’s work and boycotting the movie that’s based on his work. A lot of people worked on that film and they don’t necessarily deserved to see their hard work fail because of him. I will never read his Superman comic book if it ever gets made but if someone else decided to see the film because it looks interesting to them, I wouldn’t have any problem with it.

  • http://elisabethflaum.wordpress.com/ Elwyne

    Most ordinary religious organizations are not as ugly as this one. Most writers/directors/actors are not as high-ranking in their organizations as Card is in his. (And no, I don’t see Travolta or Cruise movies anymore either.)

    The weird thing is, the story is almost the opposite of anti-gay. If Card wrote like he believed and acted, it would be easy to avoid him; if he believed and acted like he wrote, he’d be a hero.

  • Anonymous

    I’m still conflicted about seeing the movie. I loved the book (back before I knew anything about OSC as a person) and I think the trailers look interesting, but I’m no longer comfortable supporting anything that would give OSC money to throw at causes I find abhorrent.

    That said, just because OSC is a raging homophobe doesn’t mean the entire production staff is and presumably they’d be making more money off of this than he would. It’s too bad they couldn’t siphon some percentage of the profits to a gay-friendly group in order to offset some of the negative publicity.

    Whether or not I wind up seeing the movie will probably depend more on whether or not my local theater gets it (the perils of being in the boonies) and if I have the money and interest at the time. While I did like the trailers, I have a… suspicious vibe in general about what the actual quality of the film will be like. I tend not to trust Hollywood- especially with adaptations. Maybe I’ll decide against watching it because the additional materials I see beforehand will make it sounds like drivel. OSC might be more of a “final straw” than a critical factor.

  • Anonymous

    I disagree. Boycotting someone isn’t the same as calling for censorship. It simply means you refuse to support someone or something that supports a cause you don’t believe in. Censorship is completely different.

    I will be boycotting because any money he makes off his projects goes to support organizations I refuse to support. I’m not giving him my money so he can turn around and give it to them. Period.

  • Anonymous

    I’m tolerating him, but with a specific stance: http://touchoflunacy.com/2013/07/open-letter-to-orson-scott-card-on-tolerance/

    I’d pretty much been ignoring him, but when he came back with this, what feels pretty much a mealy mouth, “I know I’ve been a jerk, but that doesn’t mean you can’t see my movie.”, I became a bit incensed.

    I can separate the artist from the art. I don’t agree with John Ringo in many ways, but I’ll gobble down a Posleen universe based book in a heartbeat. I no longer lean towards Heinlein’s strong Libertarian ways either, but if he were still alive, I’d be buying his book, and did buy the two that came from his estate.

    This, however, isn’t a case where it’s just a disagreement. Since he started climbing up onto that high horse of “It’s wrong, and we need to overthrow our government if they support this”, I kind of said, “Ok, don’t shut up, but also don’t take my money.”

  • Kay Foulkes

    While I sympathise, given I have seen no end of films which are written/star/directed by people who hold views contrary to what I hold dear I can’t see why this should be any different. Also I have a pay monthly card for the cinema so it won’t cost me any extra to go see it.

  • TWOxACROSS

    I’m sorta with you on this, Arrowe. It’s directing the displeasure of a person’s actions and views onto the wrong people. If I went and saw Ender’s Game, or read the book, I’m not condoning his views, I’m enjoying the sci-fi entertainment he created, just as he created sci-fi entertainment uninfluenced by his views.

    All in all, I don’t really think that a person’s sociopolitical views should have such a bearing on whether or not you might enjoy something they create, unless it’s specifically influenced by those views.

    Hell, Hitler was a mass-murderer, but even I can admit he painted some decent pictures.

  • RMCoyote

    Then you are anti-theist?

    I mean, there is a difference to me between supporting something you don’t believe in and are ‘meh’ about, and supporting something that is directly effecting your life and the lives of others.

    Like, I do NOT support works by theists who are affiliated with groups who suppress rights I am concerned about. Full stop. If they were donating money to a church that was against gay marriage, religious equality, and etc? Totally not going to see their work (or at least not pay for it).

    But the majority of churches in my experience, even some really conservative ones, don’t actually donate to any political movements or the anti-gay agenda. And I lived in the deep south for a time! Most of what the money went to was repairs, charities to feed poor people and revitalize barely livable homes, and etc. Even looking back to the Church I was a part of as a kid, there are only 1 or 2 things I wouldn’t want my money to go to now, and those are more a matter of “this is a waste of money” then moral objections. So, for the most part, the money that goes to theists probably goes to summer camps that act as a place for parents to drop their kids off during the summer and some pretty decent charities.

    I mean, don’t get me wrong: There are a ton of issues in Churches and there is a reason why I haven’t stepped foot in one for years and consider myself a universalist now! But I find it odd you equate “don’t agree with” to “this impacts me and those around me right in our very rights as human beings.”

  • The Gaf

    I think ≠ does not mean what you think it does. It means
    “unequal”.

    You’re agreeing with me.

  • http://anziulewicz.livejournal.com PolishBear

    The first time I had ever heard of Orson Scott Card was when I read his short story, “A Thousand Deaths,” in the long-defunct Omni magazine. I later read the first four of his Ender Wiggin books, and a slogged through all five books in his Homecoming series, though becoming a bit puzzled by the Mormon imagery toward the end.

    It was only later that I found out what rabid disdain Card had for Gay people. And trust me, I did my research. The utterly nasty things he’s had to say about the LGBT community, coupled with the fact that he’s a board member of the very anti-Gay National Organization for Marriage, tells me all I need to know. I regret that I’ve thrown so much money at him in the past. I will not do so anymore. I’m skipping the film version of “Ender’s Game.”

    Mr. Card has every right to express his anti-Gay vitriol, just as the rest of us have the right to call him out on it. But I have no doubt that conservative Christian churches will still bring their congregations to the theater by the BUSLOAD to support this movie.

    Of course, if Orson Scott Card now thinks the issue of marriage equality for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples is “moot,” I suppose he’ll just resign from his position as a board member of the National Organization for Marriage. But no, I don’t think that will happen.

  • RMCoyote

    I love when some Christians talk about Hollywood’ liberal agenda and I’m like “You get to see straight white people who are usually vaguely Christian (or at least nonaffliated to not offend you) in movies all the time, reinforcing the same old values. Seriously?”

    Of course, some of those complaining about it are concerned about the Sex and Violence in the movies, so at least they are somewhat consistent rather than purposefully ignoring how good they have it.

  • Anonymous

    There are more than a few arguments that the books ARE anti-gay, or at least contain commentary to that point. The enemy aliens are known as “buggers”

  • lemonvampire

    Okay, look. I totally understand that some people are willing to see this film regardless of Orson Scott Card and his homophobic activism, and some people are going to see this film because they actually SUPPORT that activism. But aren’t we all forgetting a couple of other very important facts about this film in the midst of all this?

    Whether you are boycotting because of Orson Scott Card, or not boycotting in spite of Orson Scott Card, or not boycotting because you AGREE with Orson Scott Card, remember, this is still a film that’s been produced by the studio that brought us TWILIGHT, and the director that brought us X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE. Can’t we all agree to just not see this film for those reasons at least?

  • Anonymous

    Possibly because they’re… Bugs?

  • http://brightblueink.net/ Inky

    Eh, they tend to focus on the character’s actions, in my experience. If they character doesn’t act how a “good” Evangelical “should” act–for example, if they believe in evolution, have sex outside of marriage (pretty common), doesn’t go to church on Sundays, even swears a little–they immediately assume the character isn’t Christian (or is one of “those Christians” that isn’t a “real” Christian…which I have a whole rant about, but I’ll abstain on). So in their perspective, no, most characters can’t be reasonably assumed to be “real” Christians.

    Not saying that I agree with them or disagree with you. They just see less of themselves in films than you’d think. I think they have a mindset of “all characters are atheists unless proven otherwise”–if characters being unaffiliated is supposed to be an attempt to avoid offending them, that’s sort of backfired.

  • Anonymous

    Mr. Card has a very conservative, militaristic outlook on life. This is known. So did Joel Rosenberg. I disagree with both of them (past tense for Mr. Rosenberg) but they both wrote ripping good military SF.

    I find it is possible to enjoy such stories without actually subscribing to the author’s world view.

  • Melynda

    Honestly, I didn’t really like the book so I don’t think seeing the movie was ever going to be a thing for me… But even if I did like the book, I don’t think this movie would be something that I’d give my money over for. I know there’s the “well, if you are only going to see things created by people you agree with, blahblahblah” thing, but aside from this man being a bigot, he’s trying to say anyone who disagrees with him is bigoted against his bigotry, which is just ridiculous.

  • Anonymous

    The gay rights debate is a symptom of religion’s hold over society. Religion is the root cause, not a separate issue.

  • RMCoyote

    True! I think I’m just coming from a conservative background (that I have since fled from. FLEEEEEEEE.) where there were half of people who didn’t care and were more the Guns and God type that were fine with cussing and etc, and the other half were the “Unmarried sex! Cursing! Violence! Not quoting scripture all over the place!” types.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry – been up 37 hours with a friend who had to have an amputation done and I didn’t read that right. You are correct. So…we agree to agree? =)

  • Anonymous

    Can’t tell if you’re joking… “seminal” and “semen” are both descended from the Latin for “seed”, but they’re not directly related. It’s not unfeminist to use that word, any more than it would be unfeminist to talk about “a grain of truth” or “the germ of an idea”.

  • Anonymous

    90% of Ender’s Game fans are going to come out of that movie complaining it’s not as good as the book. I think we can predict that safely. So why on earth are people willing to defend a movie that will inevitably disappoint them?

    Taking the moral high ground will get you so far, but avoiding crap movies is a whole lot more reliable. See also: Lone Ranger. But don’t ‘see’ it obviously.

    I struggle when the internet gets pissed at films I had no interest in seeing anyway. I agree with you all, I just can’t honestly pretend I’m boycotting on moral grounds.

  • Samuel

    Preface: I don’t pirate, anything, I believe in paying for material that I want.
    If I was going to watch this movie, I would pirate it.

  • RMCoyote

    “Religion is the root cause”

    PFFFF HAHAHAHHAA-

    No. Just. No.

    Religion is a method for human beings to spread ideas and take part of community. There are plenty of religions that are fine with Homosexuality, and I have met quite a few atheists who believe Homosexuality is abhorrent and wrong because it does not provide what they consider a evolutionary benefit.

    Specific strands of Christianity were homophobic, and those were the ones that were grown in common culture because of various reasons (in the past it was a religion that promoted a very heavy equality message for it’s time and place- in fact, in the original churches there were many women who were leaders, which contrasts to a lot of modern religious groups who do not allow women in leadership positions at all).

    Most religions don’t start as big and omnipresent- they grow because humans started liking the idea for some reason, they gain power, and then force those ideas on others. (Or they grow more naturally through discussion and etc- but that is rarer. Much rarer.) Mostly because having a common religion is a easy means to keep power, especially when you can say something you want the nation to do is ‘of god’ to gain power.

    We had the luck of being influenced by cultures who had homophobia as part of their make up gain political power and wealth, and they became the dominant thought in the western world, which then spread as Western Imperialism grew.

    “Religion” is a tool. Not inherently good or evil. It’s people who choose to believe without putting the ideas to the test, and who blindly believe what others say, and who decide that 2 homophobic lines in the entirety of a massive book should be held up before the thousands that talk about loving your neighbor.

    The thing I hate about comments like these is that you people seem to gloss over the fact that religion is itself a manmade creation, a solidified form of philosophy. It’s just as bad as people can be, and when people gain power well… absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • RMCoyote

    To be fair- I totally boycotted the Lone Ranger because if they had actually done it well I would have been there in a hot minute (because I am a sucker for any form of culture clash. Like, such a sucker.). The thing is, I knew that if it wasn’t done well it had a 90% chance of also being racist and sexist (but more racist), and even if it was done well it had a chance to be racist and sexist. If it had somehow been bad and NOT racist… probably would have seen it. Though as they cast Johnny Depp that was a incredibly unlikely possibility since that already made it pretty racist.

    It turning out to be awful just made me cackle with glee that it means Disney is totally going to lose money for that clusterfrick.

  • Anonymous

    As a fellow atheist, I disagree with you. I’ve met people who use their religion to justify supporting human rights, and I’ve met atheists who justify their homophobia with “It’s just basic biology!”

    The “root cause” is territorial assholes who don’t want to see anyone outside of their Group as human. Religion is certainly one place where that attitude can thrive. Another is political parties. Another is Pokemon. All in all, I’d say it’s much easier to boycott someone who is directly involved in an anti-gay organization than something as nebulously ill-defined as “religion”. Trying to combat irrationality is just less… productive than supporting things that are rational. Like human rights.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t want to see the movie but, for people that do but don’t want to give money to Card or the filmmakers or whomever, here is a little trick that I use for Mel Gibson or Roman Polanski movies: buy a ticket for another movie that starts at roughly the same time and then walk into the movie that you want to see. The Theater doesn’t really care, as long as you purchase a ticket.

  • Josh Evans

    Still watching it opening night.

  • Josh Evans

    As someone who works in Hollywood, in the post production industry. Yes. There is a liberal media agenda. It is very real and all encompassing. Kind of a downer for a guy who just wants to make films.

  • Anonymous

    I see it more as people using religion as an excuse to spread hatred rather than religion itself being a problem. More often than not the hellfire & dalmatian set pick and choose which bits of their religious texts they’re going to use to “prove” their point. They leave out key phrases and strip all context from the original words.

    To paraphrase what someone smarter than me said, “Religions aren’t the problem, their fandoms are.” ;)

  • Miss Cephalopod

    Could you elaborate on this? I’m studying to enter the animation field and I’m curious about this.

  • Nat

    Well here’s my question from a production stand-point: Do we know if it’s in OSC’s contract that he receive a percentage of the movie’s profits or has he *already* been paid?

  • Miss Cephalopod

    But would you have bought Hitler’s paintings knowing full well that the money was going to go towards the legal marginalization of Jews?
    Basically I agree with you, but in this case it’s not just a case of OSC having personal views I don’t agree with; it’s that he is in a prominent position in one of the biggest, best-funded organisations to take action against pro-gay legislature.

  • Anonymous

    BAM. Thank you for laying it down so well, Susana.

  • Anonymous

    Ditto.

  • Anonymous

    But can the money still reach OSC’s organization? If he has a share of the profits, yes, but if he doesn’t, then going or not will not make a difference in his bottom line and only hurt the people who made the film.
    That’s why I think we have to make sure who the boycott will hurt before we make one.

  • Elena

    IIRC Card’s virginal mind wasn’t aware of the vernacular meaning of buggery. But the book still has a gratuite gay panic-ish shower scene that ends in homicide.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Of course it is possible to enjoy such stories. Sylvester Stallone’s latest movie Bullet to the Head, is the exemplar of everything wrong with the 80′s action genre Stallone is attempting to revive(sexism, racism, Stallone’s desperate attempt to cinematically belittle every knew guy that comes along to take his “throne”), but I still can’t wait to see it.

    AXE FIGHT, COME ON!!!!

    This is about materially objecting to Card’s involvement, because that material benefit to Card will allow him to fund more efforts against LGBT equality.

  • Kathy

    Let’s see. He’s on the public record as wanting to take our daughter away from us, dissolve our marriage, and put us in jail. He’s put his money to work in favor of that and interweaves his hate into his literature.

    But that’s all ok because a narrowly divided Supreme Court struck down one part of DOMA, so now he’s the oppressed minority and if I boycott his movie, I’m in the wrong?

    Fuck off and die you bigoted piece of shit. I’ll see your movie when you denounce your previous stands and apologize for your actions. And by apology I mean that you’re actually sorry for your stands, not just sorry you lost and can’t chuck me into a concentration camp.

  • Anonymous

    I was once a fan of OSC.

    Then I stopped being an anti-gay reactionary fundamentalist bigot, and a lot of the appeal went away.

    Not planning to see the movie.

  • RMCoyote

    I love that phrase! XD I have seen something similar floating on Tumblr and it makes me laugh every time.

    And exactly! It’s funny, because when I talk about leaving the Chuch and Conservative Christianity behind me, people always think it’s because of outside forces making me ‘wake up’ or something. In truth, it was because what the Church was teaching was contrary to what the Bible actually said, and ignored context and bias and such things. Hell, in some ways I am a Universalist because the Bible said so (said in a tongue in cheek manner, but pretty accurate for the beginning of my journey nonetheless).

    So, the fact it, the central part of the Religion is what led me to love people deeper and to pursue good, because THAT is what me as a individual latched onto and found compelling. If people just stopped finding the bad bits compelling, those would die off pretty quickly.

  • Anonymous

    Even if he doesn’t get points, a good box office showing will translate into MORE movie deals (sequels as well as his other books). A poor showing will stop that.

  • http://www.fangsforthefantasy.com/ Fangs for the Fantasy

    I strongly advise AGAINST Alyssa Rosenburg’s suggestion – especially her “moral offsets” suggestion.

    This is just an attempt for straight people to assuage their ally guilt. Putting money in Orson Scott Card’s pocket then throwing a few dollars at a charity does nothing to say that bigotry is not ok. It says bigotry is ok – so long as you make sufficient nice gestures afterwards. If you hit me in the head, I don’t care

    If you want to see Ender’s Game and decide that Orson Scott Card’s fighting not just against marriage equality but also for the reinstatement and preservation of sodomy laws, isn’t sufficient reason for you to skip the film then fine. Go see it. but don’t delude yourself that you’re an ally or a nice pro-gay person or delude yourself that this doesn’t hurt gay people. Don’t give a sop to your conscience to justify supporting him; because that’s all this “off set” is about – cleaning up liberal guilt

    And do be sure to buy a chick-fil-a sandwich on the way out of the cinema. Might as well go the whole hog

  • TWOxACROSS

    This is also true.

  • RMCoyote

    Well, I suppose what you mean by ‘liberal’ and what stage you are looking at. I suppose I am summarizing as “non-sexist, non-racist, non-homophobic DIVERSE portrayals that doesn’t just continually rehash what we ‘know’ about the sexes”. Not that conservatives can’t do all that stuff, but that it is more common focus of the liberal movement.

    There is certain a liberal bias on the creative end of things, but on the producer end and those who give money for things to be made there is a lot of recording of a different bias entirely.

  • Miss Cephalopod

    That’s a fair consideration. I feel like I’m cheating a bit because I have no interest in the film anyway, so I don’t even get into the tricky situation of having to decide.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I just want to say that “hellfire and dalmation” is the best typo ever!

  • Leonard Remillard Jr.

    i find this whole boycott idea to be silly and ludicrous, even if i do agree that OSC is a homophobic knuckle dragging neanderthal. the reason i find the boycott to be silly and or ludicrous is because he already HAS his millions off this movie. the movie maker PAID him in order to use his material. the movie makers gave him the money already. the only people who will be hurt by this are the actors, crew and people who make the movie. they need to get paid too, regardless of where the material comes from.

    the only thing he does stand to gain from this, will be royalties, which will not be very much if anything compared to what he already made off the books, being paid to use his material, and whatever else he made the movie maker pay him.

    am i defending OSC? not a chance in hell.
    do i think OSC needs to pull his bigoted head out of his ass? damn right i do.
    do i hope the movie gets made? yes.

    will i boycott it? no.

  • Anonymous

    I loved this book, and I was very disappointed to learn what a shitty person OSC is, but “I want to see this movie” is not more important than “my friends want to get married and not get thrown in jail for it.” So I won’t be seeing it; even if I didn’t have to pay, I wouldn’t add myself to the crowd at the theater and make it look like I’m okay with it. [This is just about my perspective; people might come to other conclusions for themselves, and I think there are legitimate criticisms of boycotts, particularly when the work is the result of lots of people's input and labor.]

  • Jim Cook

    People are free to see whatever movie they want, they’re also free not to further line the pockets of a homophobe who once stated that gays should be arrested to “teach them a lesson”.

    You couldn’t pay me to go to this movie.

  • Miss Cephalopod

    Why are you replying to me? I didn’t bring him up.

  • Anonymous

    Not a typo. I stole it from an old comic strip I’ve forgotten the name of. Comes in handy sometimes. ;)

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    Like has hopefully happened with any planned “Lone Ranger” sequels???

    *crosses fingers*

  • cgthegeek

    Agreed. Moral offsets!? That’s not how money works.

  • cgthegeek

    Where is this magical place where the attendants are posted at every door, checking the stubs before you enter the theater?

  • Miss Cephalopod

    This is really interesting and, to me, very surprising to hear because, well, if you look at Hollywood movies in general these days, there’s so much sexism, racism etc going on. At least I’m not aware of the general idea, “Hey, Hollywood! Diverse stories and characters, progressive in terms of gender portrayal, etc!”
    But I’ll take your word for it :-)

  • TheBoost

    I have too assume that if the issue is moot and we should all graciously move on with our lives, that Mr. Card has left NOM and the organization is disbanding.

  • Nathan Goldwag

    Sorry! I meant to reply to someone else and clicked on you by mistake.

  • Anonymous

    Most of the theaters I go to have one check-point, as you enter the area where you can get into the various different multiplex points.

    It’s cheaper in terms of employees you need checking as they go in.

    But if they get large public moral outrage over 15-year-olds sneaking into R-rated movies, they can get in trouble for it. (has that happened anytime recently? It seems like nobody’s been making as big a deal of that ever since the internet came around)

  • Jill

    Well, the whole Twilight series was written by a Mormon who believe that women are beneath men – a soul caste one down from men. The traditional temple wedding ceremony for a Mormon includes the man pulling the woman through a veil, symbolizing that a woman will get to heaven through her husband.

    We now have a clarity about hatred of the LGBT people or racism, but we still struggle with that mind set that women are a step down from men and support artists who don’t believe women are full citizens or equal souls. I welcome the chance to boycott or embarrass these asshats who give money to anti-choice organizations, who abuse women in their personal life, or those who don’t really believe that women are regular people.

  • The Gaf

    Well, now I feel like a jerk. Sorry to hear that.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    We’re on it. :^D

  • Anonymous

    You bring up a very good point.

  • https://www.facebook.com/OperationHotblood?ref=hl HeroOfGames16

    I can kinda understand this. I mean, J.R.R. Tolkien was a staunch catholic, but I do like his works nonetheless. I guess that’s because I try to separate the writer works from the writer’s own ideological thoughts UNLESS the works of the writer contain the same ideological thoughts the writer himself or herself vocalizes.

    However, people have pointed out that this case is different because OSC is pretty influential in the “High Order of Anti-Gay Marriage Bigots”, so I will keep this whole boycotting thing in mind. I’m already looking forward to seeing Hangover Part 3 and Pacific Rim, so it’s not like I’m running out of cinema food.

  • Pink Apocalypse

    Google ‘false equivalency’, and then take a Logic class. Pay particular attention to everything related to fallacies of presumption and distraction. This is a sincere request, and did not come with a down-vote.

    Both you and those who up-voted you are embarrassing Atheists like myself, who actually understand critical thinking.

  • Nat

    Which I’m very much not disputing, I’m just pointing out the has OSC already run off to give his money to hate already. The people who want to see Ender’s Game because they love the books are going to see it. The job of this planned boycott is to convince people to NOT give their money or support to the movie. That’s all.

  • Brian

    No he doesn’t. Think of the recent Superman issue. Card had already been paid for the story. The impending boycott sent the message to DC that associating with deranged bigots would not make them a profit. So they recanted and removed him. So he’s already been paid for this movie, so what? The intent isn’t to rob him it’s to send a message that we will not support someone who works against civil rights.

  • odango atama

    I once bough Ender’s Game because it was on a list of “sci-fi book you have to read” … and it hung around the house for years … and then I saw a backlash post on Livejournal about Card’s anti-gay (activism isn’t the right word) involvement … and I threw the book out. It’s the second book in my LIFE — because I think books are sacred — that I have thrown in the trash.

  • Brian

    I have powerful nostalgia associations with Chick-fil-a because it was in my college dining hall. This year, one opened up near me. I did the moral offset thing once. ONCE. I donated twice the cost of my meal to GLAAD, Freedom to Marry, and the Henson Foundation. Still felt icky. Haven’t gone back since.

    … Man, that was a tasty sandwich, though. *loathes self*

  • Bejbi Kejt

    As a fellow atheist I call bull on this reasoning. This kind of generalization makes very little sense in the context. Unless religion defines a person and their actions I see no merit in your argument. A theist who supports gay marriage, separation of church/mosque and state, stays out of my reproductive organs, etc. has no impact on me, despite the fact we disagree on the issue of god. OSC actively works on taking away peoples’ rights, spews hate and is generally so vile that on moral grounds I could not support anything that would make him richer, and with that more powerful. I would feel dirty knowing that in a roundabout way I funded hate speech. Now, if you don’t see it that way and want to see the movie, just say so, you have every right to. But please don’t try to justify it with a straw man argument.

  • Brian

    I must ask, what’s the other one?

  • Anonymous

    Leonard brings up a good point, Card has already profited from the movie and the only people would would suffer from the boycott will be the actors, crew and people who made the movie. Regardless I will not be paying to see Ender’s Game because I agree I will not support someone who actively works against civil rights of others.

  • Canisa

    “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.”

    Fuck. That. Guy.

  • BabeWoreRed

    I had NO idea =|

    Ugh that is just horrible, makes me ashamed to like the book so much.
    Any desire to see the film just left me.

  • Anonymous

    WOW! He raises ‘Poor Loser’ to a whole new level.

  • Brian

    But he doesn’t bring up a good point. Why would the actors and crew suffer? They’ve already been paid, too. The point of this boycott isn’t to stop Card from getting paid.

  • Brian

    Sadly, when you buy one of “good Card’s” books, “evil Card” gets the money.

  • Anonymous

    I’m wondering who is more likely to have pedophile inclinations. A homosexual, or someone who writes a series of novels in which 7,8, and 9 year old children speak like adults, manipulate world politics, and become criminal masterminds bent on world domination. All while wearing sleek, brightly colored jumpsuits.

    What up, OSC. Where’s YOUR head at, man?

  • Vian Lawson

    Nothing would make me hand over money to see this movie; not even for snacks to watch a pirated version at a friend’s house. But it strikes me as a very good day to donate the cost of two movie tickets to a local LGBT charity anyway. “Hey, bigot? You know that money you wanted me to spend on your movie? It went to Teh Gays. Have a nice day.”

  • Jay, King of Gay

    Let’s be clear.NOM is not an org that Card supports.He’s on the board of directors, that’s a decision-making and leadership role.

  • Laura Truxillo

    “Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of
    gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them
    when the issue was still in dispute.”

    FFFFFFFF.

    That is a thing. That is a thing that he said. With words. Words that he wrote. Saying that thing. The guy who writes for a living, who writes scifi–a genre that is supposed to be full of insight into the humanity of others–wrote those words. Saying that thing.

    I don’t even.

    I have no idea what the crap he’s even thinking.

    A) The issue is NOTHING LIKE MOOT. It’s still so very active and most states still don’t allow non-het couples to marry. Heck, there’s still plenty of states where you can be fired for not being straight.

    B) What do those words even mean? “You keep insisting on my tolerating you wanting to like a human being with the rights that you fellow Americans enjoy freely. Well, I won’t do that. But you’re punishing me for actively trying to deny you those rights–WHO’S THE INTOLERANT ONE NOW?!?!”

    Still you, Mr. Card. Still you.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    Oh and Susana, you are my new hero.The gay blogs totally dropped the ball on this one, glossing over Card’s involvement in NOM in favor of highlighting just his comments. Sometimes it takes a geek.

  • Laura Truxillo

    Y’know, I like this.

    I actually really do want to see this movie, and on the big screen. I loved the book as a kid, I’m a scifi nut, I love big, bombastic nerd movies, and the trailer looked great. My best friend will probably go see this, and this is exactly the sort of movie that the two of us would have bro-time over.

    I’m not going. Full stop. Not gonna happen, even if someone comps me a ticket.

    But I won’t lie, it makes me a little sad to miss out. But the idea of donating the cost of a ticket or two makes the whole thing better. Less of a sad, “I deprive myself of this for MORALS” and more of “Hey, I found a better place for that money!”

  • Laura Truxillo

    ” hellfire & dalmatian”

    Now imagining a dalmatian hellhound.

    There is something to this, though. I am a Christian. As such, I get FURIOUS when I see people use a faith–especially my faith–to justify hateful words and actions. I mean, we’re people, we all screw up, and I’m an ornery cuss myself most times. But to justify that kind of cruelty with a faith is just wrong, and to justify it with the words of MY faith is just sickening.

    As it happens, I spend a lot of time angry. Like Ben Stiller in Mystery Men.

  • Anonymous

    For some reason I keep thinking of HP Lovecraft, and how his racism can taint the perception of his own work.

    Orson Scott Card may find himself in that same pit.

  • Laura Truxillo

    As other people pointed out, money aside, box offers numbers could have a significant impact on future book-to-movie deals, to say nothing of giving Scott Card more fame (in the less nerdy circles. Say, talk shows, etc) to spread vitriol.

    I’m not boycotting the movie. I’m just…not going. I always feel squicky calling my not seeing/buying things a boycott. I’m simply…not partaking of it because there are elements that I dislike enough to take away from the experience.

  • Laura Truxillo

    That’s what used book stores are for!

    Or Goodwill, really.

  • RMCoyote

    Well, as I said, it’s on the creator end of things. But the problem is that as those creators aren’t producers, a lot of them either aren’t being made, being made as indi films, being butchered before they hit the screen (did you know that ‘Pitch Perfect’ was supposed to have the two main female characters in a relationship with each other by the end, originally?), and etc.

    I mean, think of it this way. Robert Downey Jr. has been vocal about playing Sherlock like he was in love with Watson completely. I am sure him and many of the actors/writers/etc would have loved to have that actually adressed in the text! But the money behind it are all like “nope” so we get the same racist/sexist shit.

    Of course, there are still godawful people on the artistic end of things as well. See all the white washing casting choices in the last year alone.

  • Anonymous

    No prob – it’s all good. =)

  • Anonymous

    Related: The delightful, acidly tongue-in-cheek response to the “free speech”/tolerance argument from Popehat.

    ” I thought that I held Card in contempt and that I would express that contempt like a civilized man, by eschewing his society, directly or indirectly, in an exercise of my freedom of expression and association responding to his. But it’s all right, everything was all right, my struggle is finished. Mr. Card has helped me win a victory over my intolerant self.”

  • Anonymous

    I already have an emotional attachment to this franchise and even having re-read this series knowing OSC’s stance, I can’t find anything homophobic in the actual content of the text. It is possible to enjoy something and hold its creator in contempt. T.S. Eliot was a raging anti-Semite, that doesn’t mean his work isn’t worth consuming. I’ll donate an extra $12 to HRC to cancel out any money OSC might make off the price of my ticket.

    OSC broke my heart when I found out he was such a bigot, but I always found Sister Corretta, Bean, Val, and Ender to be the kind of characters who wouldn’t care one whit about sexual orientation. Ironically the characters in this story promote the kind of tolerant mindset that their creator lacks.

  • Brian

    I’m considering buying a ticket to another movie just so I can sneak into The Lone Ranger. I want to be able to complain about it more authoritatively.

  • http://offthemall.org/ Bryant Turnage

    Evil OSC wrote those books, actually. His twisted ideologies run through most, if not all, of his fiction.

  • totz the plaid

    “Ender’s Game” is still a little homophobic: the enemy aliens in it are called “Buggers” and ‘buggering’ is British slang for doing it up the butt.

    Coincidence? Maybe, but I personally doubt it.

  • Adam R. Charpentier

    Ha! One person disliked. I knew someone had to like X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

  • Elias Algorithm

    Can we toss a few Mi-go in after him?

  • Laura Truxillo

    I think there’s a problem with only thinking of it in terms of One Ticket. How’s the old Demotivator go? No single raindrop thinks it is to blame for the flood.

    It’s more than just money. Ticket sales tell Hollywood what to make more of. They tell Hollywood who to hire again, who’s hot. Current-hot-movie-related fame translates into talk shows, interviews, articles, and a wider audience, a more broad platform for him. It increases his influence.

    Does just one ticket do that?

    No, probably not.

    But a bunch of people who find his views–and more importantly, his actions–despicable buying just one ticket…that might.

  • Laura Truxillo

    Do they actively work towards harmful things? Publicly? Because he sure does.

  • Anonymous

    And to think when I read Xenocide, I thought the book was preaching for tolerance of what you don’t understand and against the Church’s overreach. It still stings.
    I will not go see the movies, mostly because there are many things I disagree with in the adaptation process already, not because Scott Card is a misguided miserable little troll.

  • Anonymous

    Great point. Nobody is calling for a federal ban on the movie or pressuring theatres into not playing it, unlike say… all the “Pro-Family” (read: straight family only) groups when Ellen came out for example.
    Boycott is freedom of speech at work.

  • Anonymous

    Right? If you go with his general principle then Nazi Germany was terribly treated by the Allies. They killed a few people in the process but it was only because they didn’t like them. They have a right to their intolerance, right?
    So tired of hearing and reading bigot cry bigotry when you point out they are bigots.

  • Anonymous

    You know, besides the big reveal at the end, the only thing I really remember about Ender’s Game was Ender calling Ali the N-word and it being okay because Ali was Ender’s black BFF.

    And it’s not intolerant to boycott the products of awful people. It’s not intolerant to tell awful people that they have terrible opinions and should feel terrible about them. That’s that Freedom of Speech thing people are always talking about. What is intolerant, however, is people who work to deny other people rights. No one is trying to take away anyone’s right to be a bigot, they’re just trying to keep people from putting the force of law behind their bigotry. However you feel about this particular issue, that has historically not worked out very well for us.

  • odango atama

    Someone down voted me. HAHA!

  • odango atama

    “Hind Feet on High Places” … *shudders* … I went to Catholic school and our teacher had us read it. That book was a mess.

  • Anonymous

    Twilight was pretty frigging racist too, while we’re at it.

  • Anonymous

    Too bad they’re the same guy.

  • Anonymous

    This is pretty much why it’ll probably be the first movie I’ve ever pirated.

  • Foxfire

    The good thing about HP Lovecraft is that his work is in the public domain (or whatever it is called) so he gets no money from his creative work. Regardless of how racist it may be (re: most of his work ;p)

  • Anonymous

    I think it’s ridiculously dickish of Orson Scott Card to hold others to a standard of tolerance that he does not apply to himself. That’s hardly a level playing field.

    “You’re a horrible bigot if you don’t support my horrible bigotry” is a beyond hypocritical argument. He actively uses his earnings to attack the rights of people, but is alright taking their money to use to further attack their rights? That’s just insane!

  • Anonymous

    The man has the brass neck to use the word tolerance? What a cheek. We are not morally obliged to tolerate his intolerance.

  • Anonymous

    Plus he’s dead, of course.

    It’s such a shame when an author’s intelligence and compassion – which they clearly must have to some degree in order to write well – are not sufficient to see clearly on issues of prejudice and discrimination Sometimes a writer/creator can be incredibly progressive in some ways but completely wrong-headed in others (e.g. Gene Roddenbury).

    What Orson Scott Card doesn’t realise – I presume – is that this is all he’s ever going to be remembered for. The merits of his creative work will be eternally overshadowed by his abhorrent personal beliefs.

  • Anonymous

    Tolerance on his part would have been keeping his opinion to himself to begin with.

  • Megaera

    He is a co-producer of the film, so he will benefit from any profits it makes. And he will generously use his money to fund projects and organisations he believes in.

  • Megaera

    Or wait till it comes out on DVD and buy it second-hand.

  • Megaera

    He’s a co-producer of the film.

  • Megaera

    ‘The people who want to see Ender’s Game because they love the books are going to see it.’

    Not necessarily. I’ve loved the book since I first read it in the 80s. I have waited over 20 years for this film. But I will not be watching it in any way that will put a penny into Uncle Orson’s pocket and through that into anti-LGBT organisations. I may buy it 2nd hand on DVD. Maybe.

  • Megaera

    IDK, I thought his writing has gone horribly downhill in the last decade or so – round about the same time he seemed to become more rigid and fundamentalist and rabidly anti-gay.

  • Megaera

    He’s a co-producer. He will profit from the proceeds of the film.

  • Megaera

    Well, partly it *is* to prevent him profiting any further, and using those profits to fund anti-gay political activity world-wide (NOM has officially gone international since Brian Brown’s involvement in the Manif Pour Tous movement in France).

  • Megaera

    Thankfully, my daughter despises it utterly. She says she can’t understand why Bella would choose to be with the guy who keeps trying to control her and limit her activities, rather than the one who voices friendly warnings over what he thinks might be unsafe, but still does everything he can to help her achieve her goals.

  • Megaera

    Yeah. Threatening revolution goes a bit beyond ‘disagreement,’ I feel.

  • Megaera

    I know exactly how you feel. Exactly.

  • Nat

    Perhaps I should’ve worded that more clearly. I meant that those who know nothing about or even care about OSC’s personal views. For example my father is a huge sci-fi fan, subscribed to book club mailing lists back in the 70s/80s, etc (it started as a way for him to learn english) and when I mentioned not wanting to see Ender’s Game when he brought it up he had no idea OSC had views like that or knew anything about.

    Many people out there are, by today’s standards, considered ‘casual’ fans in that they don’t engage in online fandom but it doesn’t make them any less of fans.

  • Megaera

    Thanks for the clarification. I’m more that kind of fan myself: I learned about OSC’s awfulness through LGBT sites, not SF/F fan sites.

  • Lucas Picador

    Agriculture is a tool of the patriarchy.

  • Lucas Picador

    You mean, do Hollywood producers, directors and actors do things like provide monetary support for fundamentalist settlements in Gaza and the West Bank? Do they contribute money to the coffers of politicians who have pushed the US into wars of aggression, provided public cover for kidnapping and torture, and constructed an American Stasi that’s currently monitoring our phone calls? To ask the question is to answer it.

    As much as I find opposition to gay marriage repugnant, Hollywood is full of people who provide material support for organizations I find much more harmful than the anti-gay-marriage nuts. If I watched movies on that basis, I’d never see anything.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Okay, I didn’t know that. That changes things.

  • Anonymous

    Totally off-topic, but I’ve never heard the expression “brass neck” before. I love it.

  • Anonymous

    I plan to see the movie, having enjoyed this rather cinematic book (OSC directs Shakespeare projects, too, so he’s “visual”).
    BUT I plan to donate whatever my movie ticket costs to whichever LGBT cause seems capable of neutralizing his efforts.
    Any suggestions?

  • Anonymous

    He’s totally allowed to express his viewpoints. And we’re totally allowed to say he is a vile human being for his efforts to prevent people from having equal rights. America!

  • Jay, King of Gay

    But OSC is on the Board of Directors for anti-gay group “The National Organization for Marriage” that’s a role in which he makes decisions and functions as a leader for the org, that’s more than merely donating money, that’s helping to steer the prejudice ship.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    Not just his money.
    He’s on the board of directors. He’s a leader in an anti-gay group. To me, that’s bigger than what he says or does.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    BUT the more people that see this movie, the more likely another one of his books will be optioned, and based on the success of the Ender’s Game movie he may get an even larger cut, or producer credit, or this may lead to a series or further work.
    Yes, other people worked on this project BUT those people have already been paid.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    Not exactly.
    The actors and crew have ALSO already been paid. The only people who might collect on ticket sales are people with the word “producer” in their title.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    the actors and crew have also already been paid.
    What, you think they live with Mom and Dad while they wait for their movies to come out? They get paid weekly/monthly just like regular folks.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    And also to send the message, hopefully, that it’s not worth investing in a franchise of Ender’s work.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    His opinions aren’t the issue.
    He’s on the board of directors for an organization that has as it’s goal, stopping gay equality dead in it’s tracks.

    I don’t want him to apologize. I’d would be just fine if he pulled the plug on NOM and stopped trying to screw with my family.

  • Jay, King of Gay

    Kailye. Try reading that section again, this time pay close attention to all the sarcasm in the sentences.

  • ACF

    Tolerating and ignoring aren’t the same thing. Tolerating a view means allowing someone to hold that view. We aren’t calling for him to arrested, or censored, or whatever. He is, legally speaking, entirely free to hold his view. And we are entirely free to tell him he’s wrong, and to not support his work because of them.

  • Megaera

    Absolutely.

  • TheBoost

    That seems cowardly and dishonest. If an artist makes something that you want to see so badly that it overrides your moral stance against that artist, enjoying what they made but not paying them for it is a total cop-out.

  • Lauren Brown

    But does that make you better than him?

  • Anonymous

    Well, I said he is a vile human being so, um, yeah? Was it not obvious that that is what I think?

    More specifically, I hold a stance that is in line with my morals (equality, autonomy, respect for families) and is oppositional to his (exclusion, heteronormativity). I’m pretty sure that yes, that means I believe myself to be more morally correct than he is on this issue.

  • Jill

    If you don’t believe that women can lead a church, somehow in a lower caste where god doesn’t believe women can be elders or lead churches, ya don’t believe that women are made of equal soul stuff.

    If you believe that wives should obey husbands and that husbands are the natural head of household, ya believe that women are a caste down in the household.

    If you think it is blasphemy to think that god could be a woman, then ya might be an asshat.

    If you believe the highest calling for a woman is to have kids, then you believe that not all women are created equal to other women not to mention, men.

  • dorothy_notgale

    Yes. I know your pain – found out last year I think, and the beloved book’s sitting on my shelf, just THERE, embodying a lot of my adolescent sci-fi love but at the same time implying an unsuspected seething ball of hate.

    In retrospect, there was a lot of the book I was uncomfortable with in the way of disturbing hints, but the perspective on zero-G fights really compelled me in a way few written action scenes ever have, so I think that’s part of it.

  • dorothy_notgale

    And bunking nude together, co-ed, don’t forget. Because SMART kids are just like adults!

    …In retrospect, those were always the exact things that weirded me out about the book.

  • Anonymous

    The major difference between HPL and OSC is that Lovecraft was writing in a time when it was illegal in many states for non-whites and whites to marry, many non-whites were not allowed to own property, and a whole host of other horrendous laws were in place that weren’t repealed until the Civil Rights movement. OSC is writing in a time where this sort of intolerance is being actively, constantly and publicly challenged, and as we’ve seen, they have the law on their side now.

    I realise HPL and other authors of the time period sometimes extolled views which are abhorrent to modern readers, but that’s the difference 80 years can make.

  • Anonymous

    True, but again, HPL’s and OSC’s situations are entirely different. HPL never had much of an opportunity to meet more than a handful of non-white people his entire life, and during that time they were considered by the rest of society to be second-class citizens at best and sub-human at worst. OSC is living in a day and age where gay people can own property, have open sexual relationships, adopt, do nearly everything that heterosexual individuals can do, with the backing of the majority of federal law and progressive thinking society on their side… yet he still chooses to live in the ’50s where homosexuality was directly linked to paedophilia in several instances.

  • http://www.fangsforthefantasy.com/ Fangs for the Fantasy

    Uh-huh it’s always fun to see people dismiss my human rights as “politics”. Sure Orson Scott Card wants to throw me and every other gay person in prison – but it’s just politics! To object to putting money in the man’s pocket so he could campaign to destroy our families is discriminatory!

  • Anonymous

    Oh yes, and I think it’s entirely right that Scott Card will be remembered more for his intolerance than his writing, I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

    As you say, where writers of Lovecraft’s generation have some defence in that they were ‘of their time’ in their beliefs, Scott Card has no such excuse.

  • Anonymous

    On a side note, just for Americans’ future references can I point out that while totz is quite right and ‘buggering’ can be an epithet for anal sex, that does not mean that meaning is implied whenever a Brit says ‘bugger’?

    It’s actually used as a mild swearword, divorced of any sexual meaning. You’re likely to hear people say of children ‘daft little bugger’ and so on.

    So if you see people using the word, please don’t assume they’re using a homophobic term!

  • Anonymous

    That’s a good point you make: it;s easy to forget that a massive part of any fandom is not online, surprising as it may seem. I’ve got friends who could quote you chapter and verse on, for instance, Game Of Thrones/SOIAF but it wouldn’t occur to them to engage in online fandom. So there’ll always be a lot of fans oblivious to this stuff.

  • Anonymous

    That’s an interesting point… but if you’re talking about the people at the top of the chain (directors, producers etc) I think they have a moral responsibility for the material they have chosen to work on and deserve any flak coming hteir way.

    If you’re talking about people lower down the hierarchy – animators, camera people etc – I don’t think you need to worry. They’re already paid, and no future employer is going to say ‘I see you worked on visual effects in Ender’s Game… but that movie tanked so we can’t employ you.’ I’m an animator myself, and you get hired on the quality of your previous work, not their commercial success. Plus, in my experience, crew are not all that invested in the commercial success of movies, simply because statistically you work on more middling successes than blockbusters. It’s nice to be able to swank out of working on an ‘Avatar’ or a ‘Avengers’, but outside of that it’s not an issue.

  • Anonymous

    Yes! Great article. I love your anger. There doesn’t seem to be enough anger in this website.

  • TWOxACROSS

    Very true. Although I don’t think even the execs were very worried about Card’s views. All they saw was a popular book that hadn’t been made into a movie yet :p

  • Anonymous

    “Tolerate my intolerance!” Thank you for pointing that out; that is it EXACTLY. My husband is unfortunately a big fan of this guy, so we’re probably going to see this movie. I’ll make a compromise to donate the same amount we spend on that movie to, say, the Human Right’s group. And of course, I plan on talking his ear off about these issues. I still don’t feel like that’s enough, but…it’s a start I suppose.

  • Anonymous

    His words are actively harmful to those he seeks to marginalize (even further then they already are). Even if he didn’t take all these gross “extra-special!!” steps to “save marriage” (barf), he would still be spreading a message of hatred. And with his platform, he’s able to get that message across faster and able to touch more people’s lives then if he wasn’t famous. And WOW, you “tolerate” TMS putting up LGBTQ issues? Okay, player.

  • Anonymous

    Yeah…when Husband and I went to Comic Con last year, he got to see OSC in person and have him sign my book (ewww). I had NO idea at the time, and now when I see his signature in my book…just try to think of ways to erase it. I’m sorry we gave him the time of day. (btw, NO ONE else came by to see him when we were there; wasn’t a line or anything. At the time I thought that was a little strange, but I added it up to “well he must not be very well known”)

  • Anonymous

    It’s okay to like problematic things…just acknowledge that. And no, it’s not about anti-gay messages in the book (if any), it’s…you know, just re-read the article.

  • jenrose

    I’m sorry if you think I”m dismissing you. I’m not. And it is not “politics” for me, it is an extremely personal issue that I’ve worked tirelessly to educate people about. You have a right to not spend your money on that movie. No one has to spend their money on that movie. But for me, to say, “I won’t see X because the author’s personal beliefs are abhorrent” even if I know the context of X does not reflect those beliefs is not consistent with my personal code for MY behavior, just as I won’t fire my employee for being a Ron Paul supporter, even though I think Ron Paul is a dangerous lunatic. My money goes to getting my house clean. It goes to an afternoon’s entertainment. It is not a statement of support for Ron Paul or NOM. I’d be pretty upset if my job was cleaning houses and someone fired me for being a staunch advocate for the right to marry.

    It’s not that I don’t think the battle should be fought, I just don’t see the movie theater as a useful place to fight it. And if you think that I”m somehow not a good ally because I read a book or see a movie… that’s your right to think that, but it doesn’t make it so. I’ve been fighting for gay rights and the right to marry for over 20 years now, all of my adult life. I just helped my daughter purchase a plane ticket so she can go visit her girlfriend. When she came out to me, I sat her and her girlfriend down and gave them the dating-women version of the sex talk–which I was able to do because I’d spent a good portion of my early adult years dating women. They’re my issues too, and I never said they were “just politics”. I was making a distinction between corporations (which I will boycott if they are doing inappropriate things to influence politics and political issues or behaving badly toward people) and individuals, who I don’t believe should be the target of boycotts per se. Legal action if they’re doing something illegal. Fire them if they are not doing the job well. But not for their religion. Not for their beliefs. Even if they’re wrong.

    Card’s stance on just about everything left enough of a bitter taste in my mouth that I haven’t gone out of my way to read anything of his in years. But Ender’s Game was an important story of my childhood years. I want to see it on the big screen. And me seeing it on the big screen will not make me love my daughter any less or make my support of ‘the issues’ any weaker.

  • Anonymous

    Mmmmmm no, I don’t think it’s productive to give someone a free pass because they were born into a more “intolerant” world. Granted, I can imagine it might be harder. But impossible? No. Bigotry is the same, no matter when/where you were born.

  • Anonymous

    I still don’t agree with “of their time” beliefs. Yes, privilege makes you ignorant; does it EVER. But that’s still not a valid excuse.

  • Anonymous

    So……do you mean financially supports? I would say being on the board of directors is WAY more then just supporting. That’s actively engaging.

  • Anonymous

    “show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them”
    Sure, I will show tolerance to those who disagreed with me:

    I will not call for them to be fired for disagreeing with me.
    I will not call for them to be jailed for disagreeing with me.
    I will not call for them to be silenced for disagreeing with me.
    I will not cheer on thugs who beat them up for disagreeing with me.
    I will not try to nullify the adoptions of people who disagreed with me.

    That’s tolerance. If that’s what OSC wants, he’s already got that. What he really wants is for us to spend money on his products as if his activism didn’t matter to us. And he wants us to stop calling him names. Because he thinks that’s tantamount to “intolerance”.

    Being a victim of bigotry is far, far worse than being called a bigot. Period.

  • totz the plaid

    Where did he sign? If he signed on, say, the title page, why not just remove that and send it to him with a note relaying your disgust?

  • totz the plaid

    Thanks for the clarification!

  • Anonymous

    It’s just on the inside of a D&D player’s handbook, so no, I can’t tear that off and send it to him. Buuut…I could copy it with a note, that’s actually a great idea. Thank you :)

  • totz the plaid

    You’re welcome!

  • Roberta

    To tolerate, as in the legal ‘Murican version, means OSC can’t be arrested for being a bigot. It means that if there is a criminal act committed against him, like vandalism or death threats, they may be prosecuted. And it mean that he doesn’t have to apologize for his view.

    But the buck stops there.

    He is allowed to donate money to NOM and call homosexuality a sin. We are allowed to not spend money on him and call him a bigot. That’s how it works.

  • Roberta

    “brass neck” sounds like an awesome drink that would make you forget 3 hours.

  • Megaera

    I want to back up Kata’s point here. ‘Bugger’ in the UK is most often a synonym for ‘minor irritant’ or even a term of affection (as in Kata’s example of ‘daft little bugger’) rather than to mean anal sex. In fact, I can’t think of when last I heard it actually used in its original meaning. Much harsher words are used when a person means to be homophobic.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    It’s a mistake to assume that every religion HAS a political agenda. It’s also a mistake to assume that every religion which does have a political agenda is socially regressive.

    For example, one of the cases that got the ball rolling for same-sex marriage in Canada was a church that wanted to marry two male parishioners.

  • Anonymous

    Well, no, of course not!

  • Jay, King of Gay

    that’s exactly what I was saying.

  • Diogenes

    The kids will be torrenting it online within hours of it’s opening, and those who wish to see it without funding Card’s phobias will have their cake and eat it too. Card is a dinosaur. He and his cohorts will share the dinos’ fate.

  • Diogenes

    Sneak in.

  • Diogenes

    He can say what he likes, as can those who support the boycott. Ain’t it cool?

  • Diogenes

    Yes, because he’s for unequal civil rights while we’re for equal civil rights. See how that works?

  • Aaron kooienga

    As someone who would agree with most of Orson Scott Card’s
    activism for the traditional definition of marriage, it needs to be said that opposition
    to him on this issue comes from several presuppositions such as the normalcy of
    Homosexuality/Lesbianism and that opposition to it comes automatically from a
    place of “bigotry.” I don’t want anyone locked up for being a Homosexual or
    Lesbian but I don’t want pro Homosexual/Lesbian activists using the courts to
    enforce social engineering on people that are morally opposed to this life
    style.

    If someone wishes to boycott Ender’s Game fine that’s their choice
    but pathologizing an entire subculture that’s opposed to something out of a
    deeply held moral religious belief system is just as wrong. Also at the end of
    the day it’s where do you get your world view from mine comes from The Bible
    there’s nothing I can do to change my view on Homosexuality as long as The
    Bible is The Bible and while I disagree with Card’s Mormonism.

    On this he is simply a man expressing an opinion that has
    now been declared “intolerant” by most of society and the Intelligentsia. We aren’t
    going anywhere and won’t give up the fight but on a personal note I get tired
    of having to keep saying this as it feels like no one really bothers listening and
    only talk at each other. In conclusion it’s all about what are and where do you
    get your presuppositions from at the end of the day.

  • http://www.fangsforthefantasy.com/ Fangs for the Fantasy

    If people choose to boycott or choose not to that is their business, as it ever will be – and it is not “discrimination” to refuse to give money to a bigot and support a bigot and support working with open, genocidal bigotry (and it is grossly insulting to suggest people deciding not to go to see a film because it is written and co-produced by someone advocating elimination of a minority is on par with a boss firing someone for supporting a political candidate, no matter how vile).

    I didn’t actually speak out demanding people not see the
    film – ultimately it’s down to people’s choices whether Orson Scott Card’s campaign to deny rights and even the ability to exist without being imprisoned is more important to them than watching a film; the same way it’s down to people to decide whether vicious campaigning against gay people’s rights to, well, everything, is more important than a sandwich from Chick-fil-a

    I didn’t urge a boycott and still don’t – I say why I don’t
    want to see the film and agree with other people who say why they’re not seeing the film, because I don’t want to give money that will be used against my humanity and because I want to send a message to the industry and
    society at large that it’s not ok to treat gay people as lesser citizens – or non-people for that matter. I refuse to support the film because my humanity is not lesser and promoting that belief is not something I will ever be associated with; something I’d want the other producers of this film to also share

    What I did speak up about – and continue to speak up
    about – is straight “allies” to gay people saying how they’re going to see the film but then come up with a laundry list of excuses of why THEIR supporting Orson Scott Card isn’t going to hurt gay people – through ridiculous schemes like the offset Alyssa Rosenburg suggested or writing a list of just how very very pro-gay they are and effusive comments of how they hate the film; like either of these will change that supporting Orson Scott Card is supporting and promoting a vicious homophobe using his money and influence to push a rabid anti-gay agenda.

    See the film, by all means. I don’t set your priorities or
    how much this film means to you. I’m not screaming at people for being a homophobe for seeing it. I am firmly disapproving of people making excuses for why THEY are a special case and why their support isn’t helping a homophobe and making token gestures to assuage straight guilt then looking to gay people to validate those choices.

    See the film, don’t deny the consequences of doing so or wiggle to find a weak loop hole to excuse it or that somehow loudly expressed love or guilt or disapproval will change those effects. See it, and own those consequences. Because we can’t all always make the choice which will be best for destroying homophobia, sometimes we do do things that support our homophobic society and bigotry against gay people – and we need to own it and understand it, we only exacerbate it by making excuses, by trying to sweeten or distract from the homophobia.

  • http://skemono.blogspot.com/ Skemono

    The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Okay, there’s a statement that I can actually agree with in its entirety.

    Actually, he’s wrong there too. Many states, for instance, had laws or rulings that they would not recognize interracial marriages from other states. In fact, that was part of the charges against the Lovings in 1959–since they married in D.C., they were charged with breaking section 20-58 of the Virginia code, “Leaving State fo evade law”. The cases Lonas v. State & State v. Bell declared that they didn’t have to recognize marriages from out of state if they would be illegal in the prosecuting state.
    So, I wouldn’t really rely on the Full Faith & Credit Clause to spred wedded bliss across state lines.

  • frodobatmanvader

    So, if I’m understanding this correctly, when “bugger” is used as a noun (as in “daft little bugger”), it’s NOT necessarily a homophobic slur, but when it’s used as a verb (as in “we engaged in some buggering”), it definitely is?

    That’s actually quite helpful to know.

  • Anonymous

    Okay, got it :)

  • Megaera

    Not even then! ‘Stop buggering about’ just means ‘Stop messing about / being silly’. ‘Oh, bugger this!’ just means, ‘This is annoying, and I’m giving up on it for now.’ You might say, ‘Oh, bugger!’ when you drop a plate. You’d probably use something a lot stronger if you dropped a brick on your foot. ‘Bugger’ really is a much, much weaker than most other swear-words – even my (very religious) old mum uses it quite happily as a mild expletive.

    ‘Arse-bandit’ is considerably stronger, but can also be used affectionately between male friends, even straight male friends (‘Hello, you old arse-bandit!’). I’m struggling to think of any really offensive terms for anal or gay men in common use in Britain. Of course, that could be ignorance on my part. And of course, any word used viciously enough and with intent can be used as a homophobic attack. But, typically, that word would not be ‘bugger’.

  • Eve

    I’ve read many of Orson Scott Card’s books over the years and enjoyed them, having known nothing about his personal beliefs. Going to see the film version of a book I’ve loved since I was a kid doesn’t make me a homophobe or an enabler of bigots. It’s not something I need to apologize for or feel guilty about. I don’t have to know or like anything about an artist to view their art as a separate entity. I have no problem with people boycotting but I have a problem with people telling me there’s anything wrong with me NOT boycotting.

  • http://www.fangsforthefantasy.com/ Fangs for the Fantasy

    You go see his film if you want. It’s your choice and your priorities.

    You are putting money in the pockets of a homophobe who fights against every right gay people have. You are telling Lionsgate and companies like them that increasing the wealth and profile of homophobes is ok and you are encouraging Lionsgate and other companies like them to consider similar enrichment of a genocidal homophobe in future projects

    You make your own choices, but your choices have consequences and will add to empowering this man.

    And, yet again, I did not demand anyone boycott this film, I rejected the excuses straight people were making to salve their guilty consciences like that proposed by Alyssa Rosenburg or presenting a laundry list of what a good ally they are (“the artist is separate from the art” as if it came into being in a cabbage patch, is another one)

    Boycott, don’t boycott, your choice. But people deciding not to boycott then making token gestures and excuses about what an amazing ally they are is wrongheaded and pure self-deception