When not to engage with art

[annathepiper]

Followup post on yesterday’s reporting on the latest bloviating from Orson Scott Card, prompted in no small part by this post of Chuck Wendig’s in which he explains why he’s personally boycotting Ender’s Game.

I wanted to expand a bit upon a notion I’ve seen debated a lot in the SF/F realm the last few years: i.e., whether you can engage with art created by someone whose politics you don’t agree with, and in Card’s case, whose politics you find actively repellent. More than once, I’ve seen people assert that you should not conflate the art with the artist, and that if you refuse to read things by people who are assholes, you risk missing out on good stories. I’ve also seen it argued that if you refuse to read things by people who disagree with you, you’re not keeping a suitably open mind.

But here’s the thing.

The vast majority of the time, when I see people making this argument, they’re people who’re arguing from a position of privilege–people who are, in fact, not in the direct line of fire of the repellent politics in question. It’s very easy to say “but Orson Scott Card is an awesome writer and Ender’s Game is a classic, how can you possibly skip it?!” when you’re a straight white Christian.

If you’re queer, on the other hand, you’re one of the people he wants to make illegal–a goal he’s been actively working towards, given that he’s a board member of an organization who has that as a stated goal. He’s cheerleaded efforts in Uganda to issue the death sentence to homosexuals. He is actively working, with his money, time, and reputation, to push people like me and my wife into the dirt.

So it’s a safe bet that some portion of the money he makes from his art is in fact going to go towards the goal of making people like me illegal, if not dead.

So, no. I’m never going to read a word of his. If a project has his name on it, I’m not touching it. I don’t give a rat’s ass, rat’s feet, or any other part of the rat how good a writer he is. I don’t care about whatever significance may lie in the stories he creates. I don’t care who else is involved in the Ender’s Game movie. I’m pretty damn sure they’ll all survive without getting any of my money.

Me, I’d just as soon give my financial support to people who don’t want to see me illegal or dead. And with over 1,100 things on my To Read list by people who aren’t flaming bigoted assholes, I’m pretty damned sure I won’t miss Card’s work one single bit.

Mirrored from angelahighland.com.

Comments

[rmd.livejournal.com]

There can be difficulty in being a fan of Difficult Things.

But I think there's also a difference between "this person is a homophobe and espouses opinions I disagree with" and "this person uses his public persona as a bully pulpit to call for violent insurrection as a response to marriage equality, and he doesn't just donate to NOM but is *on the frickin BoD*"

[annathepiper]

Exactly.

There's at least one other author I can name who actually falls into the former category. I've seen Brandon Sanderson espouse homophobic opinions, stemming out of his being a member of the Mormon Church. But unlike Card, I've also seen some evidence that Sanderson's actually trying to engage with people who don't agree with him and to see where they're coming from.

So Sanderson, I'd be willing to read.

[jedishampoo.livejournal.com]

I've always found it difficult to separate creators from their art; the same for me goes for actors.

But yes, even among those without my problem, there is a total line and yeah, he's crossing it, flaming and screaming.

Also, yes, Jeesus, I have very little money and TONS of stuff I'd like to check out, and avoiding certain things becomes a very simple decision.

<3

[annathepiper]

Yes, exactly. As I just said further down the thread, I have decent amounts of disposable income, but my income is not limitless. Neither is my time.

I have no qualms about choosing against spending either on this guy or anything he produces.

[prettyshrub.livejournal.com]

I regret to this day that I bought one of his books on writing, but he is a good educator. I've read the book and it is helpful to me, but I feel dirty every time I refer to it.

I bought it before I knew what a bigot he is. I also read some of his fiction before I knew this, although I'm pretty sure I did not pay for them.

Of course, I also regret watching anything by Roman Polanski.

I think it is always important to not give money to anyone who is intentionally harmful to other people. Yes, we may lose some good stuff, but we will also be limiting bad stuff, which I happen to think is more important.

[annathepiper]

Yeah, I don't dispute that the man has some level of ability to string together coherent sentences. Or at least so I presume. I've heard conflicting opinions on that regard. The only book of his I've ever read myself has been purged right out of my memory, and all I can say about it is that I ditched it long before I knew anything about the author as a person. Clearly, I didn't like the book much.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i read "ender's game" when it was still a short story and osc wasn't widely known as a homophobe. it was a pretty good story, though second in my opinion to "songbird" (which is loaded with repressed homosexuality, btw). his work's not so great that i'm willing to look past the economic and social realities of supporting him, esp. when i could be choosing to support people i feel better about with my limited entertainment dollars.

if i *really really really* feel some need at some point to see "ender's game" (at this point i have minimal desire; i am a pacifist and i don't like war movies anyway) i will take it out of the public library on dvd, since i expect they will have it in our large and extensive system. but more likely i'll finally get around to seeing say "wolverine" or rewatching "ma vie en rose".

all that said, i wouldn't buy osc a cup of tea, and i'm not sure i'd hang out with him for the duration of a cup of tea he paid for. or if i did, i'd rant about everything he got wrong about sexuality in "songbird" :)

[avram]

"songbird" (which is loaded with repressed homosexuality, btw)

I’m pretty sure Card himself is loaded with repressed homosexuality. In one of his columns about same-sex marriage he talked about how “Men, after all, know what men like far better than women do”, but male-female marriage requires “suppression of natural desires, and an unending effort to learn how to get through the intersexual swamp.”

He’s also a crappy writer. I stopped reading his fiction with 1995’s Alvin Journeyman, and have never regretted the decision.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

agreed on all counts, though i gave up in 1986 or so :)

[annathepiper]

I've seen the theory that Card is a repressed homosexual espoused a lot, yeah. I won't go there, in no small part because if he is actually queer, frankly, I'd want no association with him.

The only thing I've ever read of his was a novel called Hart's Hope. About which I remember absolutely nothing, and I actually punted it out of my library long before I knew anything about the author as a person. I can't even remember why I ditched it, other than that clearly I didn't like it very much.

[annathepiper]

I certainly wouldn't want to be at the same table with the man, and I'd be doing a disservice to the tea if I tried! Because chances would be high I'd want to fling it at him.

And yeah, I have quite a bit of disposable income, and I do buy a lot of books, but my income is not limitless. Neither is my time. I'd much rather spend both on things that won't run my blood pressure up.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i was wrong. i'd pay for a cup of tea to fling in his face :)

(i'd probably save the tea for later and just fling the water, though. why waste?)

[annathepiper]

Yep! Wouldn't want to abuse good tea!