(I already knew about his pattern of doing horrible things to children. IIRC, he’s written about it as a useful literary technique for getting the attention and sympathies of the readers.)

Where were you when I was brainstorming names for a blog? “Bigotry Damacy”. That’s fantastic. :D

I’ve always wondered if there’s some 50-year-old woman in the background smiling perversely, and incorrectly, at her own cleverness, every time someone mentions the name of her group, “nom.”

That’s because as the great great grandson of Brigham Young, he’s primarily been concerned with the discrimination and phobia of MORMONISM (while atheists and phags can go fuck themselves on the way to hell in his opinion)

It wasn’t my intention to start a major argument with my original post, I just want everyone to think for themselves and not as part of a groupthink on this issue. If your moral compass tells you not to experience Card’s creations, then by all means.

The issue is not his views (though they are worrying at the very least), it is his ACTIONS that are causing the problem. He donates his time and money to NOM, including sitting on its board of directors. He’s advocated the overthrow of the US government seemingly solely based on the point that marriage equality is being enacted. Whilst he has not preached violence against homosexual people, he’s certainly fuelled hatred and misinformation about them in order to try and win people over to his – and NOM’s – cause.

The guy doesn’t just have shocking views, his actions are abhorrent.

But to your first point, no, it doesn’t make any difference to me that Card can be singled out as an individual, because doing so is lazy and hypocritical. You either base your consumption of creative works on the political/philosophical views of the creator(s), or you don’t.

“…Hnnnnggghghghghghghhhhhhh-”

Homophobia and racism all rolled into one. It’s like Bigotry Damacy. I really don’t think I’ll pick this book up, even for free. My head’ll hurt too much.

As for your political views, I never really considered libertarianism to be a conservative viewpoint, more of a radical one…and I see more in common with liberalism and radicalism than conservative but I suppose it depends on your p.o.v.

The only difference between those contributors to collaborative works, who are conveniently forgotten about by those who argue that we should base purchasing decisions on the political/philosophical views of their creators, is that Card is a single, prominent entity. He’s a visible figurehead, and Ender’s Game and the upcoming Superman comic are written by a single individual. It’s easy to single him out. But that’s just lazy activism, and reveals blatant hypocrisy. And that’s not how I would like to live.

I’m not even sure where to begin with the assertion that participants in geek culture must by definition be liberal. First, as a Libertarian I’ve found very few occasions when my viewpoints are diametrically opposed by content in works considered part of “geek” culture… it’s usually the creators who mouth off into any microphone they can find that really irritate me. And again, by principle I refuse to let that affect my enjoyment of an entertainment product. Second, even if I did find myself frequently challenged, I would have to have a pretty thin skin or be very unsure of my beliefs to let that drive me away from an entire subculture.

and I’d say that’s a great argument for you shouldn’t separate a living author from his work.

And since you bring it up, I’d like to ask (although I’m sure it has been asked before) how the hell can you consider yourself a participant of geek culture without being left leaning? Outside of Trekkies, no other fandom has a positive or non-satirical representation of conservative or fascist governments.

There’s something similar that I’ve also…I uneasily choose the word “admired” in lieu of taking the time to think of a better one…about Orson. I remember reading in an interview that he considered himself a “Real Mormon” and that’s why he stood by such reprehensible beliefs…because if you consider yourself to be a member of a religious group then you should adhere to the doctrine and belief system that the group promotes. If you only go half in, then you’re just faking it. You just agree..or disagree…but are not a true practitioner of the cult.

I mean faith.

Jesus. Usually, the argument is, “I don’t agree with his personal beliefs, so I’m not going to read his books,” and I can’t get behind that because the art and the man are two separate things…but, augh, you make a really fierce argument against paying him any attention.

Thank you very much. Honestly, I shall adjust my planned viewing of the flick accordingly…and will wait for the flea market bootleggers.

The Bean books, on the other hand…