DC Comics hires anti-gay author Orson Scott Card to write Superman

NPR: "DC Comics has tapped Orson Scott Card, the Ender's Game author who has said homosexuality is "deviant behavior," to write for its new, digital-first Superman. That has sparked outrage among fans. Card also suggested in a 2004 essay that if same-sex marriage is legalized, "our civilization will collapse or fade away." The equality organization All Out has a petition to drop Card. (Thanks, Matthew!)


  1. I loved Ender’s Game when I first read it.  Like everyone else, I’ve since learned of his bigoted opinions and now have no desire to read his work (or even see the Ender movie).  What a shame DC hired him for Superman.

    1. Do the (admittedly horrible) opinions of the author invalidate an otherwise acceptable work?  Serious question.
      Is this like Chik-Fil-A, where you don’t want your money going where it will be used to further despicable ends?  or something else?

      1. “Do the (admittedly horrible) opinions of the author invalidate an otherwise acceptable work?”

        Superman, for good or ill, represents America and the hope for its future.

        Bigots don’t deserve to write for that position, IMO.

        1. This is especially true in that the original vision of Siegel and Shuster were that “.. they crafted an immigrant figure whose desire was to fit into American culture as an American, something which Pevey feels taps into an important aspect of American identity.”

        1. The last movie of Gibson’s I enjoyed was Braveheart, and I wouldn’t call it “great” but it was pretty good. The Passion of the Christ was reprehensible filmmaking and Apocalypto was fine, but could have used more story and less offensive native ogling.

          1. I thought Apocalypto was brilliant. IMHO. YMMV, etc.

            Anyway, Orson Scott Gard is a very talented writer. I presume that’s why they hired him.  He’s also entitled to hold, and talk about his opinions, no matter how offensive you may find them.

            That’s what free speech is all about.

            Of course you’re also entitled to protest about or boycott the movie. Your choice.

          2.  I’m confused who you’re trying to lecture.  Who ever said anything about Card not being entitled to hold and talk about his opinions?

          3. You’re doing that thing, aren’t you? That thing where bigots like to pretend that even the most polite disagreement is censorship, and then self-righteously lecture about how censorship is bad.

            It’s pretty clever, really. You know your actual views are indefensible, so you derail the conversation so you won’t be called on to defend them.

        2. The last great movie Mel Gibson made was in 1981. It’s one of precisely two great movies he’s made. Can you guess what they’re called? I’ll give you a hint, there’s a third film in the series and Tina Turner does nothing to make it less craptastic.

          Since then he’s made three good movies. Ramone’s pointed out Braveheart and the other two both have the words Lethal and Weapon in the title.

          1. I thought “The Year of Living Dangerously” was quite good.  I liked his “Hamlet,” too.  And he was very good in “The Bounty,” and “Conspiracy Theory.”

            Sure, he’s a loon, but he’s a fine actor.

          2. Year of Living Dangerously was good. Back in the days when people still wondered if Sigourney Weaver would have a career post-Alien.

        3.  Dan, you need to go beg Gouken to let you finish your training. Clearly your idea of a “great movie” is about the same as your idea of a “great fireball”, which is to say very bad.

        1. Women, gays, and blacks should be as quiet and meek as possible and hope for whatever scraps of humanity these jerks throw at them, apparently.

        2. It’s legitimate not to buy for any number of reasons. When you buy from one vendor rather than another it’s typically for far more trivial reasons. Location, price, that cute cashier you like….

          1. There’s no known way of saying an English sentence in which you end a sentence with a prepositional phrase and emphasize it. Get me a jury and show me how you can say “in a transaction to avoid”.

      2. The problem here is that we’re talking about a cultural product, a brand with a history that’s about standing up for minorities and fighting bigots as idealistic components of “truth, justice and the American way.” Giving someone who’s an outspoken proponent of what is essentially an American version of Nuremberg Law regarding marriage even temporary stewardship over that brand degrades it.

        DC has made a major blunder here, and fans/consumers are correct in expressing their opinions. DC depends on their goodwill, and has basically tossed it aside for some cheap stunt-casting on the writing.

      3. It’s a question I struggle with particularly for him, because when I read the Ender series, I see a lot of noble ideas (and sure, some ones that go unquestioned that are a little dodgy), about acceptance of differences.   But many of his views are repugnant and the opposite of that. 

        I honestly think he believes both, and that he’s a textbook example of how religion can screw up an otherwise decent person (this is not to say that religion always does, or that religion’s even a generally bad thing, even though I don’t believe in it, but there are loads of people I think of as intelligent, tolerant, forgiving, open-minded… except when something contradicts the religion they’ve been taught all their lives, where it’s like a switch is flicked and they do a Jeckyll/Hyde).   I’ve met people like this before, some of them are in my family, and it just isn’t in me to throw away the good along with the bad. 

        The compromise I’ve made, in his case, is that I’ll still read his books (at least, that series, nothing else he’s written has appealed to me all that much), but I’ll only purchase them used, and hope for the better angels of his nature eventually win out and I can financially support the stories that made me into a science fiction reader again in good conscience.

        1. I honestly think he believes both

          Well, duh. He’s a big closet case. Without gay subtext, his whole body of work would be a trifold pamphlet.

          1. Yeah, I don’t know how serious you are about this (because it’s always an easy joke to make), but, in all honesty, I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s truth to this.  

            There’s a good heaping of self-loathing that seems to come out in much of his work that I’ve read, and his “we have to lock up the gays as a deterrent” idea strikes me as a “please give me more things to deter ME so I don’t act on my shameful feelings” type thing.

          2. He’s never directly denied it. And there does seem to be a new thing in Mormonism where admittedly gay men are married to women and have children.

          3. Antinous/Moderator: It was the same thing when I served in the Navy. If you were married (and, better yet, had kids even if they weren’t your own),  it seemed you could be as gay as you wanted to be.

          4. I unfortunately live in the same city as OSC, and his stench is everywhere. He writes a mega-column called Uncle Orson Review’s Everything for the local Tea flavored conservative free tabloid, The Rhino Times. You know the kind of paper. They still refer to the President as Barack Hussein Obama. The column, which stretches hundreds of column inches, is about everything if everything is defined as movies, TV, snack food, board games, his teaching career, whatever software he has bought recently, local amateur theatre and audiobooks. Usually, there is an an additional prolix, overly long screed on called Civilization Watch (guess what it’s about) That is where he will advocate armed revolution if gay marriage is passed, among other things, and why Mitt Romney was the dood. (And he claims to be a liberal Democrat!}

            Locally, he is assumed to be so gay that he farts glitter, and there is nothing wrong with that and “chooses’ to be straight-ish, but the troubling thing to me is he comes off as a sado-mascochistic pedophile. Now I’m sure he has all that well tampted down just like any queer bits of his soul. I don’t have reason to believe he has ever harmed a child, but he writes about some skeevy stuff, as anyone who has read his child rape fantasies full of Christ-like, abused, naked, beautiful boys will know. The additional evidence we noticed long ago is in his movie reviews: he loves male child actors. He waxes rhapsodic about the smallest performance of a prepubescent male, and predicts great things in there future. Also, he personally takes all the reference photos of a local child who is used as a model for  in his Ender comic titles

      4. Some of Roman Polanski’s movies are excellent, but I can’t enjoy them after  learning about what a perv he is/was. (And no, it wasn’t just statutory rape, although statutory rape with a 13 year old is bad enough.) Actions are different from just opinions, but still. Once you learn that an author/director has principles that you object to, it is hard to let yourself get lost in their work.

        1. Polanski’s movies are about perversion and degraded morals, so I can accept and even enjoy them understanding that the artist put something of himself into it.

          Card’s personal viewpoints are at odds with the Superman brand.

      5. It’s a good question.  Nothing in the Ender books is anti-gay so I have no problem having available for students in my library.  However, I’ve vowed to only buy used copies so that Card gets less of my (or my school’s) money.

      6. As “The Watchmen” pointed out, costumed superheroes have a troubling tendency to promote conservative and even reactionary worldviews. “There is a God and he is an American,” is the type of thing one could imagine being said about Superman. 

        1. Indeed. Superman isn’t exactly naturally progressive.. in fact the whole idea of superheroes is rather antidemocratic, and, dare I say it, tends towards the fascistic.

          Look at how the villains are always represented as ugly….

          1. *Male* villains. (Most of them, anyway)

            Female villains are usually as faux-beautiful as female heroes, but wear even less clothing.  

          2. I think Donner’s movies changed that. Those of us who were raised on those see Superman as an ideal humanity should aspire to (not in terms of having and holding power, but in terms of equitable and just use of said power for the good of humanity itself).

      7. I don’t think the horrid opinions of people invalidate their work.  I’ll happily read old sci-fi all the while cringing at the treatment of non-white men without any sort of remorse.  You have to judge people in the context with which they live, and trying to apply 21st centuary liberal ideals to people in the past is just going to mean you can’t read anything written after 1990.  

        I also think it is absolutely wrong to condemn people that have reformed.  I don’t know about you, but I was calling people f*g when I was in high school and never for a second considered that I might have been hurting someone that was gay and in the closet.  Considering the size of my class and the fact that there were no out kids, the chances that I was not only being a dick but did damage to someone is non-trivial.  I would be a bit pissed if someone judged me now, a militantly pro-gay rights dude, for being homophobic asshole when I was in high school.Orson Scott Card is an outspoken homophobic asshole right now though and he actively works to suppress and strip rights from his fellow citizens because he thinks the magic sky man told him to.  This isn’t the case of judging someone in the past in a modern context.  This is the case of judging a culture creator right now for being an asshole right now.Culture changes by naming and shaming bigots and standing up to defend those being subjected to bigotry.  Getting pissed about giving a known bigot control over a cultural icon like Superman is exactly the right time to stand up and speak out.

        This isn’t just a matter of politics.  I can forgive politics.  I don’t give two shits what a director believes or what economic system they think is best.  Someone can be an ardent communist or an anarcho-capitalist and I’ll still  happily give them my money if they have something of value to offer.  I draw a bright gleaming line at bigotry though.  Differences of opinion is one thing, being a fucking bigot is another.  It matters even more when you are talking about a cultural icon like Superman who is supposed to embody the best and most idealized version of the “American Spirit”.I won’t get my panties in a twist if Card wants to do Ender’s Game.  I might still not got see it because I think he is a bigot, but I wont be slavering with rage.  Mother fuckin’ Superman though?  Fuck that.  Stand up and be loud. Send a message to DC loud and clear that they won’t miss.  Maybe some of that message will rub off on Card too.

        1. Ender’s Game comes out this November.  Gavin Hood is the director and screenplay writer.  It’s not likely much in the way of ticket sales will go to Card.

          On a side note, I can’t believe I’m about to type this, but I agree with your entire comment.  

          1. True as far as it goes, but the more popular the movie is, the more people will buy the movie-branded reprint of the novel. If you want people not to buy Card’s books (as I do), you want this movie to bomb.

          2. Not sure if I’m more horrified that a 15 year-old actor is playing a small child or that Abigail Breslin exists is in it.

      8. It’s not his opinions that bother me (well, they bother me, but…). It’s his actions. He’s a board member of the National Organization for Marriage, the people behind Prop 8 in California. To me, that’s the difference.

    2.  Umm… what? Nothing in Ender’s Game points to an anti-homosexual agenda, and in fact he restricts his religious views quite a bit by creating a world in which religion is repressed, if not downright outlawed. Admittedly, looking back, there’s a rather glaring lack of homosexual characters, but at the same time he doesn’t demonize them. judging a work on an author’s religious views, particularly when he keeps them on the down-low in his books, is quite childish, and all you’re doing is depriving yourself of a good read.

      1. I agree. I’m gay but I’m becoming somewhat uncomfortable with the extent that society seems to be imposing their viewpoints upon people. Now we’re trying to ruin this guy for having a personal viewpoint that disagrees with ours even though he doesn’t express it through his work? If he was writing homophobic material I could understand, but since when do we require everyone to agree with us in order for them to exist? Leave the guy alone. Calling for him to get fired is defintely not going to change his mind, and will probably actually strengthen his views of gay people. This feels like a witchhunt and it feels wrong.

        1. Have you read the fucking comments?

          “Last summer, Orson Scott Card called for the overthrow of civil government if California’s Proposition 8 had failed. Writing for the Mormon Times, he said: 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 …”

          1. He’s not an internet blowhard. He’s a board member of the most influential conservative lobbying groups in the US..

          2.  Cool. Maybe he and pants-shitting guitar dude Ted Nugent can get together and hash out a plan. Meanwhile, I’m not going to re-evaluate my opinion of Ender’s Game just because the author is a jackass, no more than I am going to stop tapping my feet to Cat Scratch Fever in spite of Nugent’s jackassery. …and his lyrics …and the fact that it’s not really one of his best songs. Errrr… I think I need to revisit this here comparison.

          3. Writing for the Mormon Times, he said: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition

            …too easy.

        2. No one’s trying to “ruin this guy.” For one, he’s got a reasonably healthy revenue stream from licencing Ender stuff. Two, he can keep writing his own books if he wants. 

          The point to me is that DC has put a lot of effort in to trying to earn good will as friendly to gays. With this move, putting a board-member of the National Organization for Marriage on their most iconic character (Card is therefore an activist, not just some guy that has a “personal viewpoint”), they’ve blown that good will. It’s perfectly reasonable to let them know that fact and make their own business decisions. There’s nothing witch-hunty about it.

          1. From the American Library Association’s “Freedom to Read Statement”:

            3.  It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to bar access to writings on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author.

            No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free people can flourish that draws up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they may have to say.

          2. Expressing one’s displeasure to DC and “barring access to writings” are not the same thing. Not by a longshot.  

          3. I see no reason why not to carry Bin Laden’s writings (though I’m not sure such a thing exists). Even if he’d just as soon have seen someone like me beheaded. (BTW, this is largely irrelevant to the point of whether there’s a better person to write Superman comics.)

            Edit- forgot closing parenthesis.

          4. 3.  It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to bar access to writings on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author.

            Which is an excellent and laudable sentiment.  But this isn’t a case of people calling to have Card’s books removed from a library.  They’re calling for a boycott to get him fired from Superman.  There’s a fundamental difference.

            Boycotts are not censorship.  They’re a free-market, more-speech response.

            Card has the First Amendment right to say whatever the hell he wants.  The First Amendment does not, however, guarantee a right to write Superman comics.  (And if it does, when’s my turn?)

          5. False analogy. People aren’t pressuring libraries and bookshop not to carry DC titles by OSC.  They just say that they won’t buy it. 

            Which is perfectly fine.

        3. No-one is “imposing their viewpoints.” These are consumers/fans of a brand telling DC that it’s endangering brand goodwill. DC as the owner of the brand can do with that criticism what it likes. That’s the marketplace and the First Amendment working as it should.

          No-one is “trying to ruin this guy for having a personal viewpoint.” They just don’t want him on this particular project because his strongly-stated political viewpoint is at direct odds with the core values of the project’s franchise. That’s hardly a “witchhunt” — he isn’t blacklisted from writing for any commissioned project or getting his own books published.

        4. “I’m becoming somewhat uncomfortable with the extent that society seems to be imposing their viewpoints upon people”

          Gays for NOM, awesome.

        5. I would not buy fiction by an avowed Neo-Nazi, even if his views weren’t expressed in the fiction. I’m not sure why I should change that policy for different flavors of disgusting bigot.

  2. Hoping for a gay Superman, perhaps? It’s not Batman you know. All joking aside, doesn’t this reek a bit of an ‘At Any Cost’ agenda? I mean, I don’t agree with Card’s view on the subject but I do find it suspect to try to have him fired from a comic book hero film writing job for it.

    1. I’d feel similarly insulted if DC employed an outspoken racist against interracial marriage.

      “doesn’t this reek a bit of an ‘At Any Cost’ agenda?”


    2. Card has a right to express his opinion about gays, just as other people have a right to request that DC drop him, and to boycott DC if they don’t.

          1. There are two types of people in the world. Decent, reasonable people, and WINNERS.

            Don’t you want to be a WINNER? Survival of the fittest, ‘totes Alpha ‘n shit, ya know? It’s the natural order of things for WINNERS to get what they want by taking it. Nice guys finish last, afterall. Long live the 80s! *cocaine line*

  3. It makes me sad to discover that the author of a book for which I have a lot of respect is, himself, a jack ass. 

    Oh well, authors and their works must be viewed separately, I guess. 

      1. I’ve always had the impression that Lazarus Long is Heinlein; acerbic, misogynistic jackass extraodinaire.

        Or were you thinking of L. Ron Hubbard?

        1. Lazarus Long and Jubal Harshaw seem to have been written to represent the author in their stories but based on first person reports about Heinlein’s character here, they were relatively nice people.

      2. Heinlein is…complicated. He changed his views several times during his lifetime, and I’m not convinced that his protagonists’ opinions were always the same as his own. His sexual politics were regressive by modern standards, but progressive by the standards of his time. No one should be trying to emulate Heinlein in 2013, but he did argue loudly that a woman can do anything a man can do, as well or better, and that’s worth something for a man born in 1907.

    1. We can try. Sometimes, though, the author attempts to infuse his repugnant views into the work. Usually the result is an ugly and clumsy work (see Ayn Rand’s novels), but sometimes they’re a bit more subtle and clever about it.

      1. Try Dan Simmon’s Flashback. It was amazing that the author of some really great sci-fi and literary horror could turn out a rambling mess of a rant against “socialism” and environmentalism.

        1. Dan Simmons is someone whose work I enjoyed years ago. I even have a signed copy of “Song of Kali.” Man, did he go off the deep end. I don’t even want to read his current stuff.

          That said, Simmon’s books are his books. Same with Dave Sim’s stuff, or Polanski’s, or Card’s various series. They can infuse them with all the angry crazy they want, and they’re welcome to their fans and those who can appreciate the art despite the other stuff. Messing with a brand like Superman is a different situation.

          1. I really enjoyed some of his later stuff, Illium/Olympos, Drood and The Terror. I would put those among some of the better books I have read in the last 10 years. 

          2. I liked Ilium/Olympos except when I realized that almost every “bad thing” in the past of the future, including the last minute threat to everything at the end of the book, was caused by Muslims.  Really. 

      2. Card’s later books show his views pretty clearly. Even a few sequels into the Ender series you can find characters who are bad caricatures of weak liberals.

    1. I agree! I read Ender’s Game before I knew anything about Card as a person and I thought it stank.

        1. Trust me… many in this room of nerds are not enamored with that book and would rather see it fade into obscurity.

    2. Ender’s Game totally advocates hard for atheism and capitalism… yeah… no.  You know that Rand isn’t just a code word for religious Republican, right?  Card is a full on religious moral authoritarian, while Rand is most decidedly not.

      If you want Rand pr0n for people bored by Fountainhead, and want it hardcore and no so thoughtful and in your face you want, Jerry Pournelle.  If you want it a little more thoughtful and a little more socially lefty, you want Heinlein.  

      1.  …I actually don’t want either of those things. My point was more to the stentorian lectures delivered by wooden author stand-ins. Also that it’s rife with similar Great Man fixations.

        But yes, absolutely, they couldn’t possibly be more different because Capitalism.

  4. As a huge Superman fan and supporter of comics in general, I signed without hesitation. 

    It really is a shame.  A company that thrives on the fictional adventures of Heroes should do the right thing here.

    1. A company that thrives on the fictional adventures of Heroes should do the right thing here.

      …Oh man, wait’ll you hear how they treated Superman’s CREATORS.

  5. DC has done a lot of boneheaded things in the last month or so, but this one is bar far the biggest/boniest!

  6. Gah!  I have the same problem with this as I do with the whole Chik-Fil-A fiasco.  People are allowed to have an opinion!  Even if it’s one YOU don’t like!  If Superman suddenly starts using his eyebeams to “cleanse” the world of homosexuals, then I’ll have a problem.  Until that point, we have an experienced, talented author working on a known character.  I’m going to defend his right to be a bigot in public, even while I loathe it.  This sort of insanity doesn’t discourage people to stop hating. . .whatever it is they hate.  It just teaches them to keep it secret.

    1. “People are allowed to have an opinion”

      Ah, but apparently we’re not allowed to think low of someone who’s an avowed bigot. Nice to see your broken thought process.

      We dislike him for his choice to actively (not passively, he’s a NOM board member) hurt others, he hates others for who they are.

      1. No, of course you can have an opinion. But trying to hound someone out of their job because of their opinions is acting as a shocking manner.

        1. I don’t give a fuck if you get the vapors when I stand up for human rights of my friends and family.

          Fuck your selective morality, fuck your insecurities hurting others. Supporting hate should shock you, but you seem numb to such behavior and turn into a tone-trolling monocle-popping Victorian octogenarian when people actually say “hey, that’s messed up, guy”.

        2. I don’t want a fundamentalist biblical literalist teaching natural history, and I don’t want someone opposed to basic civil rights writing Superman.

          1. Right, this is akin to ignoring the legacy of Stetson Kennedy and getting a Grand Wizard to write stories for Supes.

        3. Here, here! When John Wayne Gacy was still alive, I asked the prison to give him a work furlough so he could entertain my kids as a birthday party clown.

        4. Look, people try to “hound” Rob Liefeld “out of his job” all the time because he can’t fucking draw (or write). Expressing displeasure with a comics company for putting a certain creator on a certain book is a tried and true tradition of comic fandom. I feel perfectly comfortable with expressing displeasure with DC for putting an activist bigot on Superman. Shit, this most likely wouldn’t even be a thing in the slightest if they had put him on some less iconic figure, but this is Superman. 

          1. Shit, this most likely wouldn’t even be a thing in the slightest if they had put him on some less iconic figure,

            Dude, this happens every time he writes a comic book.

        5. But in the world he wants, and what we currently have I can be fired merely for being gay. 
          I don’t need to put on a dress and make a flaming fireball of myself.  I can merely be me, and end up fired. 
          He supports that for me, why should he have more protections than he would offer me?

    2. And if people have the opinion that Card is a terrible person, and they express that opinion by refusing to buy the comic he wrote, they’re allowed to express that opinion, right? 

      1. Of course!  Mind you, it might also go unpurchased because it’ll turn out to be a terrible comic, but the gay bashing probably won’t help sales any.

    3. “People are allowed to have an opinion!”

      Am I also allowed to have the opinion that DC shouldn’t hire him?

    4.  I don’t know how I feel about Card vs His Work these days, but specifically in the case of Chik-Fil-A, they weren’t just expressing an opinion – they donating large sums of corporate cash to fight marriage equality.  You literally could not give them your money without funding the fight against marriage equality.

      Card, on the other hand, I know much less about.  For all I know, giving Card money may just contribute to the Buy-OSC-a-Yacht fund.

      1. You may not know that he is a board member of NOM, one of the groups Chick-Fil-A was giving money to.

        Also, on the subject of Superman’s American nature-

        “Last summer, Orson Scott Card called for the overthrow of civil government if California’s Proposition 8 had failed. Writing for the Mormon Times, he said:

        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 …”

        Seems Card’s not much of a supporter of the American Way either.

        1. Holy shit.  You are correct, I had no idea.  I haven’t paid any attention to Card in quite a while – apparently he has upped his game.

        2. What’s doubly hilarious, of course, is for a Mormon to assert that ‘regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy’ since the government did(mostly but not entirely successfully) force them to change their definition comparatively recently, so it is both the case that there are at least two definitions, and that the government can get away with changing them…

          1. I’ve wondered if that’s part of the motivation here. Maybe Card’s thinking “We had to conform to the majority’s form of marriage, so everyone else has to, too!” 

        3. So if marriage has “only one definition”, does that mean Superman will get both Lois Lane AND Lana Lang and maybe also acquire Chloe from over on Smallville? 

          Sure would be simpler than having to occasionally get rid of one of them for a few episodes or have them possessed by 400-year-old witches or him get infected by $RANDOM_COLOR kryptonite!

    5. People are allowed to have an opinion!

      And I have one about you.  You’re an apologist for evil, and you personally are the reason that hatred and oppression exist.  You are the building block of fascism when you make the argument that it’s okay for some people to be hateful but it’s not okay for other people to react to it with appropriate anger.

        1. Do you enjoy giving him money that he can pass on to hate groups? I liked the Ender books, too, but I wouldn’t buy anything that he’s touched now that I know that he’s an active campaigner against human rights.

          1. I do not enjoy giving him money but I do want him to continue writing. Maybe I should just get his books from the library and not buy them. That should solve the problem, right?

        2. No one is talking about censoring the bigoted douche-nozzle. We’re talking about not letting him get his sanctimonious little paws on common cultural property.

          Sure, people might question your taste, and they should. I like Ezra Pound, and I have to wonder every now and then, keep myself on guard against his Fascist dickheadery. You have to be conscious and thoughtful, and it helps if other people ask questions or even  poke a little fun.

      1. Me, personally the reason hatred and oppression exist?  To be perfectly mocking, gads!  I’ve been found out!  You’ll never pry me from my underground lair, and my army of murderous robots shall one day enforce my iron will!

        Look, maybe I am an apologist for evil.  But I won’t support any aggressive action against free thought and free speech, in any form.  Once you start using righteousness as a cap on free thinking, even hatred-filled filth, then you’ve got a major building block of fascism.

        1.  But would you allow insidious influence against free thought and free speech?

          Isn’t Superman’s main audience composed of minds young enough to be molded by forces they don’t understand?

          With you though on the last point.

        2. “you’ve got a major building block of fascism.”

          Did you read the quote I posted earlier? About how he would do everything in power to literally overthrow any government that gave gays human rights? And read that he’s a part of a lobbying group against gay rights?

          I see you’re more concerned about how you’re perceived versus actually fighting fascists in all of their forms. This is not abusing free speech. This is expressing disappointment in the symbolic “American” figure being co-opted by a bigot. You are a bystander to fascists, your contentness and lack of concern for their actions is more dangerous than any outrage I could hold.

        3. You also have a puerile understanding of “free speech” which, if you care to read up on, oh, say Thomas Paine, you would understand includes taking responsibility for your words in a community of people who share that right.

          1. One of those persons who would regurgitate something about “the first amendment” and “freedoms” but has no actual conception of either.

        4. Look, maybe I am an apologist for evil.  But I won’t support any aggressive action against free thought and free speech, in any form. 

          Then perhaps you should stop telling other people to shut up?

        5. Let me guess:  You’re a white male, probably christian, or at least raised christian.  Wonder if I’m right.

        6. I’ve been named one of Antinous’ “building blocks of fascism” myself–that exact phrase. I like to think of it as something akin to being one of Bush’s Thousand Points of Light. You don’t need to do anything particularly impressive to qualify, and you know it’s more about self-aggrandizement on the part of the guy bestowing the honor than anything you did, and yet in a queasy way it’s kind of a compliment.

          He’s right and you’re wrong on this, by the way. Completely wrong. Boycotts aren’t violence, and ideology has consequences. But oh, that fascism thing. What an embarrassment. What else can you say about that kind of “moderation?” Nothing that won’t get you called a fascist, I suspect.

          Besides, I always like to say howdy to my fellow Blocks. If you’re interested, some of us get together on Thursdays to play euchre and indoctrinate the local bourgeois youth into achieving autarky through political violence.

          1. The Third Reich didn’t happen because of Hitler; it happened because the overwhelming majority of Germans went along with him or pretended that it wasn’t happening. If you don’t like that example, you can substitute the McCarthy Era. Or the theocracy that Orson Scott Card and his little band of hatemongers want to institute in the US.

            Fascism is 99% privileged apathy and 1% inspired evil. Since most of us aren’t inspired enough to be truly evil, fighting privileged apathy is what we do to stop fascism from taking root again.

        7.  Banality of evil.  All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  Yes, people like you who make excuses for bigotry and hatred may be the reason those things exist.  Perhaps if you spoke against them instead of excusing them they would not exist or would be much attenuated.

          If you support free thought and free speech then you should support our use of speech to criticize OSC at least as much as OSC’s speech vilifying gays.

    6. What a horrible world we would live in if bigots were only capable of espousing their terrible and toxic opinions in private for fear of being ostracised.

      1.  He can shout his opinions from the rooftops, for all I care.  That doesn’t mean that I should give him one penny of my money.  No one is talking about taking away his right of speech, simply refusing to support it monetarily. 

        1. Oh I totally agree, I was just responding to the implication that societal/cultural (not legal or state) pressure causing people to hate ~in secret~ instead of out in the open was somehow a bad situation in which free speech was losing out as opposed to winning.

          1.  Oh I dunno, I don’t think society really loses out if people ‘hate in secret’.  Hate all you want, just as long as you don’t try to push your agenda or pass your bullshit off as a credible philosophy.

    7. Good, I’d rather he keep his bigoted views to himself so that he doesn’t to influence another generation to become bigoted homophobes. 

      However you are right, he is entitled to his opinion, just as everyone that see’s his opinion as vile and disgusting are entitled to express that they disagree with his views and will act accordingly by boycotting DC if they choose to hire the man. 

    8. He has every right to be a bigot and public, just like I have every right to call him out for being a bigot in public. Freedom of speech means you get to be an asshole. It also means I get to call you an asshole. You can say that all the gays are vile and should have their civil liberty stripped from them by the government, and I can say that YOU are vile and shouldn’t be getting book deals.

      You can be an asshole to large swaths of the population, and I can be an asshole to you. It is a two way street, asshole.
      Forget for a moment whether or not Card being bigot is enough to boycott. I don’t want him writing Superman because his politics DOES influence his writing. Can we expect Card to include sympathetic gay characters, or is Card’s world going to be a magical one without rainbows? Can a solid 5%-10% of the population just expect to never see a character struggling with the same things that they are dealing with or have heroes like them to look up to?

      A guy on the board of NOM is about as entitled to write for Superman as an asshole who is apart of the Aryan Nation is.

      Card is free to be a vile asshole to my gay friends and loved ones, and I am entitled to be an asshole right back in my own small way, though there is no comparing stripping your fellow citizens of their civil rights with not buying a fucking comic book.

    9. I REALLY dislike this argument.  As if hateful bigotry is “just a different opinion”.

      Why is this okay in regards to sexual orientation?  We do not allow blatant racism in our country any longer (not to say that racism doesn’t happen).
      Why is it suddenly “okay” when it’s about gay people?

      This argument is foolish.  We can’t change society if we don’t actually speak out and DO SOMETHING about blatant bigotry.  That’s how change happens.

    10. Gah!  I have the same problem with this as I do with the whole Chik-Fil-A fiasco.  People are allowed to have an opinion!  Even if it’s one YOU don’t like!

      Fun fact: I’m not actually obligated to purchase chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A or Adventures of Superman comics from DC.

      People are allowed to have an opinion.  And guess what?  People are also allowed to choose not to buy things.

  7. I thought Superman Adventures was an anthology book like the current Legends of the Dark Knight is, Card is writing one of three stories for the first issue, then I think he’s out. While I agree he’s a dick, and it’s clear DC made a mistake trying to use his name to sell the first issue, I still think it needs to be clear that he’s not writing a new series. He’s not even writing a full issue. 

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

      1. As everyone knows, E.T’s romance with Gertie, and the heartbreak that followed, was covered in the adult-oriented third book of the novelized series.

        There was a love triangle that included the geraniums.

          1. Just think of the possibilities of the vegetable-based machines he builds in the sequel novel!

            …and I really don’t think I want to see the Rule 34 answer to this. Yes, I know there’s some out there with just E.T. already…

  8. Ahh, yes. The collapse and/or fading of civilization. I remember some of the many times that’s occured – when interracial marraige was legalized, for example. Or when African-Americans were given the vote. Or when women were given the vote. Et cetera.

    Isn’t it strange, how every single argument made against homosexuality has been made previously against other minority groups? People cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality in the exact same way that they used to cite it to condemn the abolition of slavery. Homosexuals are seen as evil and wicked and without morals and corrupting to society – all traits that used to be leveled at various times against the Jews, the Irish, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Latinos, and pretty much every other immigrant minority to ever spring up in the US.

    How many centuries will this pathetic, senseless, selfish hatred of minorities continue among the affluent and empowered white majority – particularly among the so-called “Christian” population? What ever happened to “Judge not, lest ye be judged”?

      1. You’ll pardon me if I simply file that under “harmless joking nonsense spouted by someone flying the Union Jack”, won’t you?


          1. Ahh, well some context helps.

            In that case it’s “harmless joking nonsense spouted by a Jewish American comedian making fun of the historical cultural values imposed by those who flew the Union Jack”.


    1. Why would a Good Person like me have to worry about being judged? As a Good Person, it’s my duty to judge people less good than me, ideally by use of state authority, and then bask in the affirmation of my Goodness provided by other Good People.

    2. Because organized groups need to have a villain to keep the followers focused upon.
      If they didn’t have something to keep the masses distracted, the masses might turn their view to the leaders who more often than not are doing much worse than those they focus their ire upon.

      It doesn’t matter how insane the boogeyman is or ridiculous the claims, they will make them to keep control.  Fearful people cling to those claiming to the only ones who can tell them how to be saved.  Every bad thing that befalls you isn’t because you were stupid, it is the fault of “the others”.  “The others” are why us nice people have to get felt up to get on planes, they are they reason you lost your job, they are the reason they want to take your guns away, they are the reason your life isn’t as good as you feel it should be.  Personal responsibility is dead, and you can feed it by shifting the blame to “the others”.

  9. Card’s views on lots of things, not just homosexuality, are pretty repugnant if you’re anything but far-right libertarian. But it’s his severe limitations as a writer that worry me here. He’s a decent plot-crafter, but he’s lousy at characterization, and his dialogue stinks out loud. 

    He got away with it in Ender’s Game because he found a plot where it actually makes sense for 6-year-olds to be speaking in full paragraphs ripped from political manifestos. But when you’re talking about comics, it helps to have characters who can be pithy, and who speak and think differently from one another.

    1. I read Enders Game and enjoyed it, but I’ve never been able to get through any of his other books.  I had more or less written him off as a one hit wonder.  I didn’t know he was a far right randroid.  That would explain a lot actually. 

      I do remember being slightly put off when Ender murdered that kid though.  Full scale Genocide wasn’t so bad because it was a bunch of bugs or something, but the way he murdered that other kid was pretty disturbing, and the author never seemed to realize that. 

      My memory is a bit fuzzy though, I read the book back in high school. 

      1. but the way he murdered that other kid was pretty disturbing

        You mean the way they were wrestling naked in a steamy shower room? ;)

        1. I remember a passage about how “It’s not enough to scare someone, you need to hurt them real bad to make them understand that you’re deadly serious all the damn time.”  Then he crushes the boy’s face or something. 

    2. As I think about this more, I can’t believe I didn’t notice the parallels between Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead and Enders Game.  They both espouse an accept-no-compromise take no prisoners approach to life, where exceptional people get to become superhuman once the limitations of society are stripped away.  I read all of the books around the same time too! 

      Then again, this is all distant memories for me, I am probably way off base.

      1. I think you could find parallels anywhere. For me that is kind of a stretch. At the end Ender is a broken person. Over the next few books you see that he is so broken he essentially has to die to overcome the damage. I think the themes are more of exploring the wide varieties of intelligence that is possible.

        1. I seem to recall that he was caught offguard by the M. Night Shamalon twist ending, and was I think the only person ever who hadn’t figured it out before the halfway point in the book.  I would be devastated too if I realized just how blind and stupid I had been. 

          Also, “Congratulations on being the biggest mass murderer ever, by a huge margin! You’re going in the history books kid!”

          1. No, you’re not the only person who didn’t figure out the ending halfway through the book. The ending was so unexpected to me I remember feeling numbed and wondering whether I was really supposed to admire a society that abuses and manipulates its citizens into causing genocide.

    3. There’s really nothing libertarian about being against gay marriage.  On social issues, and foreign policy as well, most libertarians are more liberal than Democrats.

      1. Tell that to the American Libertarians who actually hold political clout and office, then, because clearly they — including the granddaddy of them all, Ron Paul — didn’t get the memo.

        1. It’s been said that the word “libertarian” is best used as an adjective, so I probably shouldn’t have used it as a noun up there.

          Like most folks, Ron Paul has some libertarian beliefs and some anti-libertarian beliefs.  Opposing equal protection under the law for minority groups is anti-libertarian.

          1. It’s been said that the word “libertarian” is best used as an adjective, so I probably shouldn’t have used it as a noun up there.

            Seems like America has missed a lot of memos, lately! What’s new, I guess.

          2. Right, if “On social issues, and foreign policy as well, most libertarians are more liberal than Democrats.” applied to the party at large, you’d see a huge number of Dems change party affiliation and a fair number of (but not all. There certainly exist honorable ones) former Reps drop out.

          3. My generalities are coming back to bite me in the ass.  Instead of “social issues” I should have said, “social issues like criminal justice and civil rights.” Of course, there are self-identified libertarians who believe in universal access to education and health care, and in a social safety net, so I’m really thinking that using terms like “liberal” and conservative,” (hell, even “libertarian”) is becoming less and less constructive.  And that every issue should be argued on its own merits and based on practicalities instead of ideological identification. But that’s a tall order (as my next sentences indicate!).

            The reflexive defenses of Obama as he’s acted like Bush (and worse in some instances) are testament to the valuing of loyalty over liberalism for a good many Democrats.  Same is true for Republicans and their devotion to party no matter how they contradict their own empty platitudes about “small government.”

            For what it’s worth, the libertarian “party at large” nominated Gary Johnson for President.  He was much, much more interested in civil rights, government transparency, and global peace than either of the “mainstream” candidates.

  10. I thought the pro-civil rights, pro-homosexual rights etc. group is the more highly evolved group. Why are there articles like this unwilling to transcend what differences we have as humans? Nothing will change without dialogue. This whole issue will just be a stalemate if the people fighting for the rights of homosexuals doesn’t reach out and show the other side that we are consistent in the belief that love isn’t selective. Didn’t Gandhi say “An eye for an eye will make the world go blind”?

    With the Chick-fil-a ordeal, change.org had it right when their petition was to have a family with with two mothers sit down for a dinner with the COO. We should start thinking of solutions like that.

    1. “With the Chick-fil-a ordeal, change.org had it right when their petition was to have a family with with two mothers sit down for a dinner with the COO. We should start thinking of solutions like that.”

      Except that internet petitions are mind-shatteringly stupid and effect no change whatsoever.

      What caused Chick-Fil-A to crap themselves? An actual boycott from gays and allies. Demands are ignored, but boycotts are simple and effective.

      1. I wasn’t talking about the internet petition idea. I was talking about the dialogue between both groups. Whether you like it or not, their votes count just as much as yours and mine.

        1. That wasn’t a dialogue and it never happened.

          “Whether you like it or not, their votes count just as much as yours and mine.”

          What a meaningless sentence. They vote to eliminate human rights, and you sit and shrug and tut-tut.

        2. The answer to their votes counting as much as yours and mine is not to abstain from voting because it’s their right to have a vote.

          It’s to vote against them.

        1. They’re not the only avenue, surely. Why only choose one, though? I do talk to people on a personal level, when those avenues are available at a time when I feel I can reach others.

          For example, the Phelps clan has had several exiled family members, for which I always preach kindness and tolerance, even when they were a part. Why? Because I knew they could be reached and had no political power.

          1. My point is that sometimes persons can, not that I think that Card, Beck, or every other bigot can. I tend to take it as a case-by-case basis.

          2. @google-4b3c8a17ed014a95db54ba5b738648c0:disqus  Thanks for the clarification, I should have read more comments, actually.

      2. We should petition DC to do a mash-up encounter between the Man of Steel and Apollo from the Authority. Should be hot!

      3. What caused Chick-Fil-A to crap themselves?

        Er, nothing?  Near as I can tell they just kept on doing what they were doing.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for the boycott, and I don’t eat at Chick-Fil-A either.  But I don’t see any pants-crapping over it.

    2. I agree. When someone says they want to burn gays at the stake, we should meet them half way and suggest that perhaps a really bad sunburn would be more appropriate.

    3. It’s a lot easier and a lot more effective to simply deny public support for hatred via law and comsumer choice.

      Changing the hearts and minds of bigots themselves would be nice, but it’s not feasible, especially when dealing with a religious community whose thinking is two thousand years out of date.

  11. I’d be surprised if our civilization didn’t someday “collapse or fade away” but it won’t be because of allowing anyone in particular to get legally married

    1. Ironically, that series contains a detailed, sympathetic portrayal of a gay character who has to deal with some pretty severe bigotry.

  12. More quotes from someone who is writing for a character meant to inspire hope and honor-


    “The dark secret of homosexual society — the one that dares not speak its name — is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.It’s that desire for normality, that discontent with perpetual adolescent sexuality, that is at least partly behind this hunger for homosexual “marriage.”

    “Claiming to have “gay friends” of his own, this is what he came up with:But homosexual “marriage” is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society — to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.So if my friends insist on calling what they do “marriage,” they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won’t be married. They’ll just be playing dress-up in their parents’ clothes.”

  13. I enjoyed the Ender series, and I am happy to have the issue of Analog Science Fiction and Fact in which the story first appeared. I am saddened to hear of Mr. Card’s opinions.

  14. Look, I’ll completely support everyone’s right to their own opinion, even if it is racist or bigoted.  That’s freedom of speech.

    But I will use my opinion, my freedom of speech, to counter that.  Just because you are allowed to say something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have consequences.  It’s not protected in a bubble and neither are you. 

    The consequences of saying asshole things is me saying you are an asshole.  Then I tell my friends you are an asshole and suggest we all not support anything you do. If a company we are fans of hires someone we don’t like, it becomes time to vote with your wallet.  

    That is not censorship. 

  15. Contrary to most here, I don’t think that Card’s personal opinions show very much in his work. It should be illustrative that most people are /surprised/ when they learn of his socially conservative views. His backwards views simply don’t bleed through very much, so I don’t think the otherwise invisible opinions of an old writer should desecrate an otherwise fantastic body of literature. 

    1. “the otherwise invisible opinions”

      He’s a board member of a very powerful anti-gay lobbying group, actually. His beliefs are being used directly to hurt others.

      “It should be illustrative that most people are /surprised/ when they learn of his socially conservative views.”

      I think most people are surprised only in that they didn’t make the connections before, because plenty of his conservatism is present in the literature.

    2. That’s untrue. For example, in one of his Ender/ Bean books, he stops the action so that one (gay mad scientist) character can go on a lengthy monologue about the evils of homosexuality. Of course, his books are almost entirely founded on his bizarre, dysfunctional view of interpersonal relationships.

    3. Ironically, one of the core messages in Speaker for the Dead was “Don’t attack others just because they’re different”, which seems to be what OSC’s all about in his real-life political standpoint.

        1. I thought Speaker for the Dead was pretty clearly on the side of the people performing bizarre religious rituals.

          1. It has been a long time but I seem to remember most everyone giving up the wood grain tracing once they found out it was all a set-up. Of course the one girl did not and was later looked upon as a kind of wise woman, but I am not sure it was clearly on her side as no one else seemed ready to go back to what they understood was a false faith.

    4. I know what you mean, but I believe it is impossible for an author to put a shield around themselves and write without churning out over-edited and controlled rubbish.  It comes off fake.

      Expressing characters and plots requires an investment of the soul.  So whatever is in you gets onto the page.  Can’t be helped.

    5. The man wrote “Empire”-a book that was so disastrously hypocritical in being far right wing that after reading it I really did wish that brain bleach existed. He even rewrote a version of Hamlet that basically featured Hamlet’s father being a terrible king because he was gay.

      There is no way in hell a man like this is going to keep his opinions out of Superman. Ender’s Game might’ve been tolerable (although hardly lifechanging) but he’s so fossilized in his bigotry now that he might as well rename himself to Hatersaurus cardi.

  16. I think even though I disagree with a writer’s personal politics, I don’t think that will necessarily hinder him from writing a story I enjoy. IThere have been several folks I am a fan of who’s politics I disagree with, Bill Willingham, Kevin Sorbo, and Johnny Ramone come to mind. All people who’s work I enjoy, yet who’s worldview I staunchly disagree with. That said personal politics can come out in writing. Fables for example has had some subtle jabs at abortion. As a writer it’s hard not to keep your opinions completely out of your writing. But a good writer will let the work speak for itself and let the readers glean what they will from it. You wouldn’t stop being friends with somebody because they disagree with you politically, so why would you not read a work by a writer with whom you disagree politically? I’m not the biggest Card fan, but have read Ender’s game and a couple of the Alvin Maker books, and as I remember they are decent reads. I also disagree with his views on the world, as I disagree with some friends of mine, but I can still enjoy a drink with them.

    1. You wouldn’t stop being friends with somebody because they disagree with you politically

      I am not friends with bigots. Are you? Because Card is a bigot, and a VERY vocal one at that. Would you REALLY be friends with someone who said the shit he’s said? If so, honestly, as a queer person? Fuck you.

      I am friends with people who have different political views, but that’s different.  And, I have ended friendships when someone’s political views clash with my own in a negative way — living in Arizona, usually that’s in a racist way.

      I have standards, and racism and homophobia are not acceptable.
      Family is different, but only to a small degree in that I probably won’t end all communication with them but they’ll probably know how I feel about them.

      1. You’re absolutely right that intolerance in any form is not acceptable. And I understand that you have a personal stake in this seeing that Card believes by virtue of your sexual orientation, you should be denied the same rights that are afforded to heterosexuals because God said so, whereas for me he’s just someone with who’s political/religious views I disagree. It is not my intention to defend his viewpoints or to play devil’s advocate. The only thing I am saying is that I have not seen his views expressed in the few books of his that I’ve read.

        1. I don’t care if you see his negative views expressed in the few books that I’ve read (though I think that just means your privilige blinds you to it, or you’re just not paying attention, as others have pointed out pretty clearly that it exists). But that is not what I was commenting on, and I think I made it very clear. you just ignored my actual points. Why?

          I was instead commenting on your assertion that it is somehow wrong to stop being friends with someone because they have “different opinions” than you.  And you were the one making the connection between Card’s VERY vile “opinions” and having-friends-with-different-opinions. I was trying to point out how ridiculous that is. It’s not the same fucking thing. Nor is it the same thing to read the work of someone you may not like. Reading someone’s work =/= personal friendships.

          Really, your analogy is terrible and I was just pointing that out. You’re trying to rationalize why you continue to read/enjoy his work, even after knowing what a vile human being he is. It didn’t really work. Read what you want, but stop with the silly rationalizations.

          And it’s awesome that you recognize your privilege, but maybe you should do more than just acknowledge that you have it.

          1. I don’t see how my analogy is terrible. I can be friends with someone who’s political/religious opinions I disagree with, just like I can read the works of someone who’s political opinions I disagree with. Doesn’t mean I have to buy into their beliefs. 

          2. So you’d be friends with a bigoted asshole, like card? Someone who essentially wants me dead?

            You didn’t read a damn thing of what I said, did I? How surprising.

            I have friends with different political beliefs, too, which I pointed out already, but “different political beliefs” does not equal “bigot”.

            But if you truly do find it okay to be friends with someone who basically wishes me dead, you’re terrible.

    1. Superman is not that at all. It’s a re-telling of a Jewish immigrant narrative, of assimilation into an American system that allows newcomers, outsiders and minorities to support and defend that system as full citizens.

      Orson Scott Card, who campaigns to subtract rights from a certain class of citizen, is not the best person to write that narrative again.

      1. I’m surprised Orson Scott Card wants to work on a comic glorifying an “illegal alien.”
        Or does the US have a wet-foot dry-foot policy for space beings as well as Cubans?

  17. Let me start off by saying I support gay marriage. But anyone who is against it is treated equivalently to a communist in the 50’s. Stop it. He is an artist with opinions you don’t agree with. This doesn’t make him Hitler. You can like his art without supporting his politics.

    1. Liking his art is literally funding his politics.

      It’s not our fault that you don’t care about the issue enough to know what’s going on which is much more substantial than us “being mean” to your favorite childrens’ author.

    2. You realize that his political activities contribute materially to the fact that I don’t have the same legal rights as my neighbors? Of course, you don’t realize it; you live in your own smug cocoon of privilege. You don’t have to deal with it, so it’s an academic issue to you.

      1. I am scratching my head and reading the comments on this post while I wonder how many of those who are supporting Card’s “right to free speech” and associated bullshit are white, heterosexual men. Who are also incapable of seeing the world through the eyes of anyone with less privilege than them…

        1.  Who do you think reads Card’s books? I’ve certainly never had them recommended to me by anyone else…

          1. Card’s books are read mostly by teenagers and often they are part of high school classes. I read Ender’s Game based on a recommendation by our librarian.


      People had their lives RUINED by the GOVERNMENT for PRIVATELY being FRIENDS with SUSPECTED communists.

      How can you… what could possibly… are you seriously… I…

      “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

      1. It’s projection. Every racist and gay-hater is seriously afraid that one day they’ll be treated like they treat others and it makes them very afraid.

        As it should.

        Either way, they’ll be treated far better than they deserve as humans (if unpleasant ones), at least they feel neurotic and unhappy about things they can’t possibly unravel without revealing how bad of a person they are.

      2. And LGBQT people have their lives ruined or ended every single day all because they are gay.  Or trans.

        I wouldn’t compare the two because they are pretty obviously different, but you seem to be implying that being gay doesn’t ruin lives, which is laughable.

        Unless I’m totally misunderstanding you, which is possible.

        1. They’re referring to homophobes who claim they’re being treated like… they themselves treat[ed] homosexuals.

    4. You can also not support his art because you dislike his politics.

      Coincidentally, that does not make you Hitler either.

    5. I think you mean “treated equivalently to someone against interracial marriage in the 50s.” And rightly so.

    6. I suspect that what you missed prior to making this comment – and it was something I was not aware of until roughly five minutes ago – is that Card has willingly and vigorously transformed himself from an artist with bad opinions into a political activist who also happens to write.

    7. I treat them more like a Nazi in 1935, because they’re supporting what are essentially Nuremberg Laws.

    8. No one is forcing Card to go into exile or be hounded day and night by the Feds. No one is going to ruin his career. People just want his hands off of a potent symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way.”

      And artists are often held to account for their politics. Ezra Pound was almost executed. Two members of Pussy Riot are in a Gulag. Bei Dao had to go into exile. This is all because the opinions of artists matter. In a way it’s actually a gesture of respect that we don’t want this homophobic butthole touching Superman.

    9. The first time I read Card’s screed that some gays should be locked up pour decourager les autres I was so shocked I blocked it from my mind. Not just the gay-hate but the rank cynicism of his view; just trying to comprehend his PoV made my head crash.

      But I still stopped reading him. I literally could not read anything he’d written; I just lost interest a few pages in whenever I tried. When I re-read the screed more recently, I realised why I’d been avoiding him. Now, I consciously have not tried to read him because I know that I can’t trust anything he writes. And that’s my choice.

      I choose not to read him, because he’s a cynical, gay-hating git and knowing that affects every word of his that enters my brain. (Also because each iteration of Ender’s story since the original novella has rapidly diminished in quality.) If you like him and can compartmentalise that knowledge from your reading, well, go right ahead. Don’t expect anyone else to like him, though, or to be silent about it.

    10. Why should we top treating bigots like bigots?

      But anyone who is against it is treated equivalently to a communist in the 50’s.

      How so? Care to explain, minus the vague hyperbole?

      Not that it matter: Communism is a political ideal or leaning; being against the civil and human rights of LGBQT people is BIGOTRY.  See the difference?

    11. But anyone who is against it is treated equivalently to a communist in the 50’s.

      Fun rainy-day activity: explain how boycotting an anti-gay author is remotely the same thing as mounting a congressional investigation against an alleged communist and threatening him with prison if he doesn’t divulge the names of other alleged communists.

      1. There’s a small chance that DC will reverse its decision and decide they don’t want Card writing a comic, which will mean he will have lost a job. Just like people who were even suspected of being communists were often fired and unable to find work.

        If you look at it from far away and squint really really hard you can see how the two situations are exactly alike.

  18. I refuse to buy anything that will give him more royalties, but I have read and enjoyed a lot of his work from the discard pile at the local library. Anyone who can write a story like Songmaster is probably at war with himself over his own attractions. At the very least, he has a lot of heavy luggage and a very wide stance in the airport men’s room.

  19. I remember when DC did their big relaunch and a lot of us hoped it would bring diversity to the writers, artists, and characters.

    And it turned out they had something like 2 women creators out of 52 books (each with a writer and artist slot), and I think the minority specs were equally grim.

    But, now they got a bigot!  That’s KIND of a minority, right?  (At least, I hope they’re a minority, or will be soon…)

  20. On the other hand, Card’s writing, and the characters in his books, reflect positive ideals far different than what Card has stated in his personal opinions.  More importantly, his books have been extremely powerful in expressing those positive ideals.  So, it seems reasonably likely that he could just as powerfully express the idealistic components of the Superman character.  It seems even more likely that if he did otherwise, DC would drop his draft story lines like a hot rock.  Having read Ender’s game, I’m on the fence.  I’m sure I disagree vehemently with at least 50% of the people who supply me with products and services every day, and the majority of them do an excellent job despite our differences of opinion.  If I tried to limit my business dealings, or even my personal discourse, to only those people that agree with me, (1) I wouldn’t know where to stop and (2) I would be bored as all hell.

    1. If I tried to limit my business dealings, or even my personal discourse, to only those people that agree with me, (1) I wouldn’t know where to stop and (2) I would be bored as all hell.

      Everything that you do in life aligns with good or evil, but the world is too complicated to know the supply chain of every item in your life. When someone points out to you that you’re supporting a vocal homophobe who’s actively attacking the rights of your fellow citizens, you have absolutely no excuse whatsoever for continuing to provide material support to that person’s campaign of hatred.

      1. Your point that my actions, knowing of the issue, are at some level different in kind from my actions ignorant of the issue is doubtless correct. But I don’t think it solves my problem that most people disagree with me in some fundamental way that is exceedingly important to either me or some group of people whose well-being I care about. And every time I inject money into the stream of commerce it necessarily benefits someone whose views I disagree with. Meaning, someone could point such things out to me for virtually every transaction. The underlying ideological or moral disagreements may be characterized as minor or vehement. In this case they are vehement. But let’s say DC Comics proceeds as planned. Do I refrain from buying the Card issues? Do I boycott DC Comics altogether? DC Comics is, I think, owned by Warner Brothers. Are all of their products now off limits? I hope not, I would love me some Animaniacs DVDs. Our taxes have been used to support more campaigns of hatred than I’m sure Card has ever had the wherewithal to champion, and people point out to me exactly how every year. But I assure you, I’m going to keep paying my taxes. I can have lots of excuses for continuing to do what is in my own best interest, despite the fact that someone I despise may benefit.

        1. That’s a whole lot of words to say that you don’t care enough about human rights to even bother trying to understand the situation.

          1. Huh, I wonder how that $12,000 check that I wrote to Human Rights Watch last year got out of my checkbook given my lack of care.  I apologize for trying to engage in a discourse.  The “Moderator” in your handle made me think you were not a flamer.  I’ll stop now and return to Boing Boing.  Carry on.

          2. I sincerely doubt someone who would throw that much money around could ever demand that others stop speaking their minds, anyway. His claims don’t impress anyone.

          3. Kinda funny that you had to assure us that you are totally an ally.  You promise!  Look at this nice, fat check I wrote to this organization  Aren’t I a great ally? A rich ally! I must assure you: A rich ally. Now, pat my back!

            You know, TRUE allies don’t have to convince people of their ally status.

            And, when an ally is told that maybe their actions or words are harmful to the group they are trying to help, that ally will LISTEN and work to change.

            Being an ally has far more to it than just throwing money around. That moderator? Is a gay man. You’re not, I assume? Then maybe, just maybe, you should actually listen to the people you claim to support. Then maybe you wouldn’t have to wave around that fat check you gave, that most people can’t afford.

            12,000. Isn’t that nice. That’s how much I made last year.

            Check your privilege.

          4. What an odd set of responses that invited.  Number 1, I’m not rich, although I’m better off than many, many extremely impoverished people here, and all around the world.  I come from Sudan.  This is a good charity that helps people like me.  So this is my charity of choice and I give $1,000 a month, about 1/3 of my take home pay on average depending on tips, to the efforts.  I only mentioned it because I was pretty offended by the comment that I “don’t care” about human rights.  As someone who has had their rights violated in quite a number of ways, I reject it in whatever form.  I never even took a position in defense of Card or his statements, nor did I ever say I would be support of DC’s decision.  I agree with everyone with any sense–Card is an awful person.  But I have seen articles where cities and schools refused to dismiss police officers and teachers for making bigoted statements in their private lives.  I honestly don’t understand how the law, or society, or whomever, is making a distinction about whether someone should be permitted to have freakish or bigoted opinions that they claim to separate from their professional responsibilities.  And, given that it is permitted, what the heck I’m supposed to do about it when it seems such a pervasive phenomena (I don’t mean just homophobia, I mean all forms of bigotry, classicism,  etc. that people are “allowed” to have in their own beliefs outside of work).  I tend to buy Marvel comics and never would have known about this issue had I not read about it on Boing Boing.  My first step after learning about the issue and being concerned about it was to start reading more and to invite discussion about what I should do and what should be done generally.  I don’t understand why the reaction was then to hurl insults at me.  I recognize the passions about this issue. But I don’t understand why people find it so easy to attack and insult others for simply trying to have a conversation about it.  I didn’t claim to have any privilege to speak on any issue, beyond the basic privilege anyone has to speak and ask questions.  Also, I don’t know why anyone would make assumptions about my sexual identity based on my level of outrage or my level of agreement or disagreement with the moderator.  That seems unfair.  An bigoted attack on any one of us should be treated as an attack on all of us.  I do indeed look to those harmed in the first instance rather than make my own judgment on whether they are harmed and how.  If you actually read my post, you’ll note that I did not disagree with the moderator’s point.  I only sought to explore it more.

          5. “I honestly don’t understand how the law, or society, or whomever, is making a distinction about whether someone should be permitted to have freakish or bigoted opinions that they claim to separate from their professional responsibilities.”

            He’s legally permitted to be terrible.

            He’s also attempting to skew the law for continued abuse of gays through NOM.

            This IS his professional career, not only his writing, but his political organizing and lobbying against human rights for gays country and worldwide (I think NOM has business in Canada as well, but I could be wrong.)

          6. C W, you are right, I followed some of the links folks have posted.  His behavior is quite a bit different than just being an author with abhorrent personal views.  My comments are less applicable to this situation than my original understanding, which at the time was simply that Card gave an interview where he showed his true colors.  People show their true colors in my cab all the time, so I’m a little less shocked by it than others.  I have come to realize that a whole crap ton of people have some pretty shady true colors.

          7. Cool. I also have a hard time accepting that some artists are terrible when I like their works, but this just weighs too heavily out of his favor.

    2. Yes, some of Card’s early work seems very tolerant and gay-friendly. But something happened, around about the time his child died. I’m of the opinion that the elders of his church got to him in his time of grief and managed to convince him that God killed his kid because he hadn’t suppressed his homophilic tendencies enough, or something along those lines. Because the stuff he’s written since then has gone further and further off the rails. The premise of that Hamlet story was just way out there in a field somewhere, far from the tracks.

  21. With most writers and artists, I’m able to separate out my dislike for the creator’s politics, and just enjoy their art. Card is one of the only exceptions, the dude really ticks me off.

  22. I like Card’s books, yes even the mormons in space ones. They’re decent books. Certainly not mind-blowing life-changing sci-fi (like Kim Stanley Robinson) but pretty good entertainment. Lots of interesting ideas. 

    I don’t see that there’s any problem in telling DC “We think hiring this guy is a dick move on your part” If Card didn’t want that to happen he should have thought about the fact that most comic book fans (that I have met anyway, YMMV) are very liberal, accepting types. There is a big overlap between fans of comics/sci-fi and deviant (I say that with a positive connotation, and I don’t just mean gay people) sexuality if my life experience were to hold up statistically. It was pretty boneheaded of DC to offer Card the job, and pretty boneheaded of him to accept it. They couldn’t see the controversy coming?

    All that said, I think it is unfair to say that if DC doesn’t fire Card and he goes on to write a decent book (I think he is capable of that at least) that those of us who buy it are “funding hate” or whatever. That’s too simple. I mean, how am I doing morally if 90% of what DC pays Card got spent on groceries and books of Mormon and 10% of it went to funding his shitty political agenda? The man is an asshole but he still deserves food and a roof over his head. 

    In summary, it would be wrong to fire Card for his beliefs, but it is definitely not wrong to loudly say that he’s an asshole and to tell DC that hiring him would influence present and future comic book buying decisions. It is also in my opinion not wrong to buy Card’s books or comics. Personally, I’ll probably pirate anything else by him I read but I’m not going to condemn people who buy his stuff. That’s way too black and white.

    1. As has come up previously in these comments (and yeah, there are a lot of them, so I can see that you might not have waded through them all yet) Card stopped being an author with beliefs and willingly chose to be a political activist who writes on the side.  See, for example, C W’s post here  http://boingboing.net/2013/02/12/dc-comics-hires-anti-gay-autho.html#comment-796915650

      1. Oh I read the thread, and whatever insanity Card is spouting, it still doesn’t mean that buying a Superman comic is wrong just ’cause his name is on it. Whether buying a Superman comic is right or wrong comes down to “Does this money go to support Card’s hate?”
        I would say no, because that money is going to a lot of places. The owner of the comic shop, the distributor, the publisher…. people who may or may not have ‘good’ or ‘evil’ agendas. Anytime you spend money on anything, you are likely paying a bunch of good, and a bunch of evil people. Look, by all means, tell DC that Card’s an asshole and you won’t buy his comic, but don’t tell other people that they can’t buy it because Card is a hateful lunatic. That’s not a 10-year old Superman fan’s problem.

        Edit: Just to be clear I’m not saying don’t tell the 10 year old about what Card says… I’m saying don’t condemn a Superman fan for buying a Superman comic.

  23. What if we didn’t know who the author is? Would we enjoy the work less? 50 years ago we knew nothing about the comic book writers. They may have been all right winged gay haters, or gays, and it didn’t matter, because what we read were their books. Wait to see what he writes!  As far as I know, there is no homophobic discourse in its previous writings, why would it be different with this one?

    1. Ummm. No. 50 years ago, in 1963, that is, comics fans had very good ideas about who the writers and artists were and felt free to express their opinions, both political and artistic, about their relative values as creators. On need only look at the letters pages and fanzines to see that is true. The difference now is only the Internet, which allows these controversies to spread beyond what had previously been more limited arenas of discussion.

    2. Yeah, what if Iron Man had been this totally pro-Vietnam propaganda piece and its writer had wound up with egg on his face for it?  That would have been crazy!

  24. That’s disappointing.  I’ve enjoyed a few of Card’s books, but did not know he thought this way.

    And I’ll probably still read the occasional Card book, but knowing this might prevent me from feeling a connection to some ideas he presents.  I should be able to avoid that, but art really is affected by the beliefs and life of the artist.  It all reflects.

  25. Well, I’m not an American so I find Superman to be a little ridiculous, sort of a fantasy of what Americans are and can do without all the messy ‘hard work’ part. 

    Given what has happened to the whole ‘truth, justice and the American way’ thing in realityk it is actually somewhat fitting to be putting an aging phobe with diminishing capacities and an absurd religious viewpoint in charge of the avatar of the AMERICAN IDEAL MAN. 

    1. But Superman is an alien.  And he stays in America because he knows that’s where he can do the most good because we fuck up the most.

      Don’t be a xenophobe.  We’ve got enough of those in America.

      1.  Big difference between xenophobia and seeing the USA without rose colored glasses.

        Though a rational ‘foreigner’ has plenty of perfectly good reasons to be afraid of the US (and many other countries).

        1. That’s true.  I was mostly hoping you wouldn’t point either of those things out!  The internet has failed me again.  Also, in my experience, not many people view America through rose-colored lenses any more.  We’ve done a lot of “hard work” to rid people of that notion.  We’re getting really good at being not liked.

  26. The people commenting “I read Ender’s [X] and there’s nothing objectionable there” make me cringe.
    It’s been openly known for many years in scifi fandom that the Ender’s series makes so much more sense when you realise that Card wrote it as Hitler fanfic; cf Elaine Radford’s review “Ender and Hitler: Sympathy for the Superman”.

    I mean, aside from the genocide, justification of violence, etcetera.


  27. Usually someone’s political/social views don’t effect whether I purchase their works unless it’s very offensive and OSC falls into that category. His homophobic rans and views were so close minded and insensitive that I swore him off. I wouldn’t give that piece of human crud any money, ever, in any way, shape or form.

  28. Card wrote an Iron Man mini-series for Marvel, and there wasn’t a peep. If you’re a fan then go for it. If you just want to take a break from spandex, I recommend “The Unwritten” and “The Massive”.

    1. When was the mini-series written? I feel like people are paying more attention now than they were even a couple of year ago.

  29. I think that it’s really one of those things that’s a personal decision. I knew people growing up who engaged in a boycott of American goods (I lived outside the US at the time, mind you). Why? Well, drone strikes and Abu Ghraib come to mind. What do you say to something like that? “No, don’t boycott the taxpayers that fund these things that are universally reprehensible?” Or even just, “…things that you, personally, cannot support in even the smallest of ways?” Forget about the effectiveness of boycotts for the moment. As a moral decision, it can be hard to argue with someone that they’re not somehow otherwise going to be supporting something they don’t want to support, even if only in a small way.

    Then there’s the other argument, the one that says, “Well, if the impact of my purchase is already going to be small and indirect, how convoluted are my ethics supposed to be? Do I boycott those who aren’t boycotting, knowing that some small portion of my money can be transferred to the cause I despise? What is the moral quantum number here?”

    I don’t know that it’s possible to argue with either view. I do think it comes down to how everyone is going to individually evaluate their “contribution” or lack thereof.

  30. I’m proud to say the only reason I even started Ender’s Game was because the library of the San Mateo County lockup was so limited. Never bothered to finish it.

    1. That was Arthur Hailey’s “Airport” for me at a different lock-up. What a horridly boring book. But still the most interesting out of the 8 on offer.

    1. I honestly don’t think people know how terrible Card is. There are plenty of people here who didn’t know about his 2008 (and earlier) haterants and the position he currently holds.

      1. Honestly, if you get outside of some of his “hit” writing, it gets pretty bad.

        What was that series he wrote that was like the sci-fi book of Mormon in space? Accidentally bought one of those because I saw his name (thankfully from a used book store) and it was horrible. Not only was the plot impossible to follow (I didn’t know it was based on the Book of Mormon) and the writing was just…bad.

        So not only do I object on the moral grounds, but I’m also less than sure his writing will be great. 

  31. I haven’t read all of the comments on this thread, but anybody who is going to embargo Card’s “Superman” should also henceforth refuse to read or praise anything by HP Lovecraft, William Burroughs or HG Wells.

    All three of ’em were provincial dicks, but I’ve never heard anybody on BB rejecting their work based on their personal bigotries and flaws.

    1.  Then again, those gentleman are all dead and thus not currently advocating against the civil rights of friends of mine.  Thus, buying their works and talking about them doesn’t in any way help to promote bigotry whereas building OSC’s up reputation by letting him write Superman does.

  32. Serious Question:

    How many people signing this petition would actually be buying Adventures of Superman if Card weren’t writing it?

    Because guys, it’s not actually a boycott if you choose not to buy something you weren’t going to buy anyway.

    (Speaking for myself?  Yes, I’d be buying it if Card’s name weren’t on it.  The other writers and artists involved are pretty great.)

  33. I’m not a fan.  Haven’t read anything he’s written.  Just wanted to note:  The interview Card gave was 12 years ago??

    A lot of people’s opinions on the subject have evolved a great deal, especially over the past few years. Perhaps, like many others, he’s evolved.


      “Last summer, Orson Scott Card called for the overthrow of civil government if California’s Proposition 8 had failed. Writing for the Mormon Times, he said: 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 …”

  34. I’ve become increasingly disillusioned with using corporate boycotts to further social causes. I feel like it’s much more effective to raise awareness for causes in positive ways, and try to promote legislation in its favor, then enforce it, rather than shame corporations doing something. 

    My problem with most boycotts are threefold. 
    1. They are applied haphazardly, and hence make everyone a hypocrite. Why does Card get a specific mention, but BB never suggested boycotting Roman Polanski’s last movie? I think you’ve actually written about Polanski a couple of times, just mentioning his work and not his rape case. Isn’t butt-raping a 13-year old girl as bad or worse as being against gay marriage? And on the flip side, I guarantee all of you that are boycotting DC are slipping in other ways. I assure you there is a raging homophobe that has helped make the computer you are typing on, or helped grow the food you ate, or help build the car or bike you a riding.

    2. Boycotts can be applied against causes you like. I know you can try to support attacked corporations that are acting on your side, but it just results in this pointless tug-of-war. It’s one of the few instances where I feel sorry for major corporations. They just want to sell their widget, not engage in a political debate. And I think that’s fair to keep third parties out of it. Most corporations probably have people supporting both sides of the debate. Attack the source, not the middle man. 

    3. Boycotts involving hotly contested issues don’t really work, and often just end up helping the boycotted company. Now that the Chick-Fil-A controversy has settled a bit, it’s clear that their boycott didn’t work at all. They just reported record sales, that are up over 13% from 2011. And I can’t help thinking that it’s due in no small part to the constant mention of the restaurant chain over last summer. It’s cool if you personally don’t want to give your money to a company, but passing around that petition to boycott them is just a chain-letter advertisement that keeps the company in the public perception for far longer than they would have otherwise. It’s the same with those Westboro a-holes. People keep writing about them, so you keep seeing their message in the mainstream media. If newspapers would do something like have a handshake deal not to write about them, they would as good as disappear from the world. 

    Boycotts just seem like lazy, ineffective activism. Modern Family probably did more for gay rights than any boycott will. Now that people are writing about Card’s involvement with this, it will just remind a bunch of Card’s fans that he’s involved with a comic and they should pick it up when they get a chance. 

    1. 1. They are applied haphazardly, and hence make everyone a hypocrite.

      Personally, I think things go better when people try to do the right thing from time to time than when they never do, even if that would be more consistent.

      And yes, I undoubtedly have done business with racists or homophobes without knowing it. That doesn’t mean that I should keep doing business with them when I find out. It would be unfair to who – people who get caught being bigots?

      That’s about as sensible as saying we shouldn’t punish drunk drivers, because you and I both know some people do it without getting noticed. Better we do what we can than wait until we’re omniscient.

      2. Boycotts can be applied against causes you like.

      So can promoting legislation, or speech in general. In fact, trying stuff can always be applied for good or ill; it doesn’t mean good people shouldn’t try stuff. If activists waited for methods that can only be used by the pure of heart, we wouldn’t have any rights at all.

      And if corporations want out of it, they can stay out of it. For instance, if Chik-Fil-A just wanted to sell chicken and not get involved in political debate, they could have tried – just to throw something out there – not giving money to hate groups.

      3. Boycotts involving hotly contested issues don’t really work, and often just end up helping the boycotted company.

      So you don’t think it’s fair to hurt the company because it probably contains uninvolved people, but at the same time, you don’t think the company is hurt. Ok.

      The point of boycotts is not a miracle to always make the good guys win. Nobody would say it should be done instead of promoting awareness and legislation. On the contrary, it is a way to promote awareness, making your voice heard through another channel. Sometimes people listen, sometimes not.

      Yeah, Chik-Fil-A may have gotten a bump in popularity from being in the news, but that sort of thing doesn’t last. Awareness often does. There are lots of people who are never going back there, their association with hate groups is now well-known, and their relationships with investors and communities will always be affected by that. And lots of companies are more scared of those consequences than they were.

      Sure, we can say boycotts are lazy activism; they certainly shouldn’t be the only way you do it. But I promise they’re much better than not worrying about what the companies you give money to support.

        1. Oops got cut off. You can do whatever you like personally with your money, of course, but organizing a boycott has become a knee-jerk response to any situation. I think it’s wiser to intelligently determine whether it is always a helpful way to support a cause. Boycotts are often  morally messy, and not effective. 

          “That’s about as sensible as saying we shouldn’t punish drunk drivers, because you and I both know some people do it without getting noticed. ”

          It’s not that some people don’t get noticed. It’s that they get noticed, and get a free pass. It’s akin to the death penalty being unfair because it is 3 times more likely to be given to black people rather than white people for similar crimes. Another example is Polanski… why no outrage about each Polanski movie that comes out? BB has written about him and promoted his work. Isn’t slamming a guy for drugging and ass-raping a 13-yo a cool cause anymore?

          “So you don’t think it’s fair to hurt the company because it probably contains uninvolved people, but at the same time, you don’t think the company is hurt. Ok.”

          No, sometimes it goes one way, sometimes the other. Sometimes, it’s fair, and sometimes it’s not. Like I said, it’s morally messy. Corporations aren’t monolithic entities; they’re comprised of many people with different beliefs all over the spectrum. Sure, your money might go to Dan Cathy, and it also goes to a ton of gay Chick-Fil-A employees. And if it isn’t effective AND it is messy, what is the point of engaging in it? There are many, many ways to raise awareness. I can probably think of ten off the top of my head that would be more helpful than this boycott. 

          Number one would have been not publishing this story so that it doesn’t go viral and gives free publicity to Card. If Card’s Superman goes to print, there are thousands of people who will have seen the headline and said, “Oh Cool, the Ender’s Game author wrote a Superman comic! I gotta pick that up!”

          1. Another example is Polanski… why no outrage about each Polanski movie that comes out? BB has written about him and promoted his work.

            That’s bullshit. Do you have any non-imaginary arguments?

  35. IMHO, Orson Scott Card is way in the closet. Hence the vehemence. Have you read Ender’s Game? I was certain he was gay until I checked his Wikipedia page and went, “Whaaaa??” All those naked teenage boys and girls who look like boys floating around in locker rooms together. I have this theory that writers tend to inadvertently tip their cards on their sexual preferences in their fiction. Joseph Conrad was into feet, Paul Theorux loves lace undergarments, and Card can’t help but mention the firm, round buttocks of his nubile subjects. Obviously this is irresponsible and unfounded speculation on my part, but if you can’t irresponsibly and unfoundedly speculate on the internet, where can you??

Comments are closed.