I know that this might be considering something akin to "flame baiting" material, but I still feel that it warrants a post
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/entertainment/dc-comics-hires-anti-gay-writer-orson-scott-card-write-superman-comic#
An openly homophobic man by the name of Orson Scott Card recently got hired by DC to pen the Man Of Steel and it's sending quite a shockwave through the gay community. One of the reasons for this might be that DC has turned several of it's own characters homosexual including the original Green Lantern Alan Scott and Batwoman Kate Kane. Possibly leading to their sexuality getting changed
In all honesty I don't really care what coloured drawings shag when I'm not reading them.
Quote from: von Boom on 14 February, 2013, 08:12:45 PM
In all honesty I don't really care what coloured drawings shag when I'm not reading them.
It's a bit ridiculous to me to. For instance, I love Doug TenNapel's work even though he's homophobic. I try to appreciate the work itself and not the man
I'm happy that the gay community is making strides for acceptance, but they really need to learn to pick and choose their battles more carefully
The issue really arises from the fact he is not simply openly homophobic, but proactively so. He's written for Marvel before and his best selling novel is being made into a big budget film. Possibly the anger here stems from the fact that he's writing an icon who represents the best in man and truth justice and all that. A character that surely would not abide this type of small minded bigotry.
I'm really torn. Following the work of Dave Sim has taught me the importance of separating the man from the art (though I've still to get around to Fables having said that). At the same time when people say if he was openly and proactively racist there'd be little doubt he'd be shunned and boycotted, so why is his homophobia and the vile things he says about people who happen to have a different sexuality to him, any different to that?
Luckily I wasn't going to read the book anyway, but it has raised some questions that I need to really think about... and I hope don't end up with me feeling I have to part with my Cerebus books!
Quote from: Little_Tengu on 14 February, 2013, 08:22:25 PMI'm happy that the gay community is making strides for acceptance, but they really need to learn to pick and choose their battles more carefully
I've enjoyed a lot of Card's fiction, his two volume short-story collection
Maps in a Mirror is one of my all-time favourite anthologies, and I greatly enjoyed his
Alvin Maker alternate America series (although I never warmed to Ender beyond the original brilliant short). I was always a little leary of his religious beliefs and his Mormon missionary work, but I'm leary of almost
everyone's religious beliefs, so that wasn't a problem for me.
However, some of the stuff he's said about gays, and gay marriage, is hate speech pure-and-simple. If people want to play the man not the ball and lobby against his writing Supes, and interfere with his life because of his views on sexuality, I say that's
absolutely fair turnabout: this is a good battle for anti-discrimination activists to pick, IMHO, because it's very public and has all the usual 'think of the children' dimensions that comics and Supes in particular always attract.
I'll stop short of jumping on the bandwagon myself because I generally don't believe in using der Sternhammer Silencer except where it directly prevents incitement to violence and hatred, which it is very unlikely his comics work will. But if people want to get their licks in when it's possible to do so, let 'em.
Quote from: TordelBack on 14 February, 2013, 08:33:24 PM
However, some of the stuff he's said about gays, and gay marriage, is hate speech pure-and-simple. If people want to play the man not the ball and lobby against his writing Supes, and interfere with his life because of his views on sexuality, I say that's absolutely fair turnabout: this is a good battle for anti-discrimination activists to pick, IMHO, because it's very public and has all the usual 'think of the children' dimensions that comics and Supes in particular always attract.
I'll stop short of jumping on the bandwagon myself because I generally don't believe in using der Sternhammer Silencer except where it directly prevents incitement to violence and hatred, which it is very unlikely his comics work will. But if people want to get their licks in when it's possible to do so, let 'em.
Well there are just some people out there that feed off hate and anguish. Depending on how far the Gay community takes their protests it could make them look bad
Quote from: Little_TenguIt's a bit ridiculous to me to. For instance, I love Doug TenNapel's work even though he's homophobic. I try to appreciate the work itself and not the man
I've been trying to keep TenNapel's hard right/libertarian world view compartmentalized away from his work. But he makes it so hard because he's gotten into the really REALLY bad habit of editorializing his world views in his comics.
Earthboy Jacobus was one of my favorite graphic novels ever, until I really started rereread it a few times and its message of family starts to fall away into a pit of snobbish Christian values and American jingoism. But it still manages to rise above it most of the time.
It got REALLY bad in
Ratfist. And the opening scenes of
Cardboard have basically made it impossible for me to continue (the guy can't take a personal loan from a friend, but he'll take an extreme discount from a stranger? Libertarian hypocritical BULLSHIT)
Orson Scott Card has a similar problem. Actually its the exact same problem. A while back I took a stab at reading
Ender's Shadow, because as a teen I liked
Ender's Game a lot. Heck, I liked
Speaker for the Dead too. Ender's Shadow wasn't bad, mostly because it was a side story to the original. But when I moved on to the next Shadow book,
Shadow of the Hegemon, something started to change. It started get more and more preachy. Bean and Petra basically become mouth pieces for Card's warped world views. And its that point the entire series went sour for me.
Its fine to try and separate creator's views and their work. When their views and their works are separate. But Card and his work is not separate, TenNapel and his work are not separate. And that's the problem.
Seperating the art from the artist. If the chap can make good comics without shoe horning in his own belief's (no matter how much I may disagree with Mr.Cards ethos) then let the guy run. If he goess all preachy and proactive on us, turning Sup's into a vehical for him to churn out his bigoted ideals, then let the freaker be subject to a good kick in the ribs.
Quote from: Hawkmonger on 14 February, 2013, 09:58:59 PM
Seperating the art from the artist. If the chap can make good comics without shoe horning in his own belief's (no matter how much I may disagree with Mr.Cards ethos) then let the guy run. If he goess all preachy and proactive on us, turning Sup's into a vehical for him to churn out his bigoted ideals, then let the freaker be subject to a good kick in the ribs.
This.
V
Card is a homophobic hatemongering cock and deserves the ire he has worked hard to attract - people didn't just decide one day to peg him as a cock so I say let the fucker enjoy the fruits of his labors.
Quote from: Lightning McQuack on 14 February, 2013, 10:19:48 PM
Card is a homophobic hatemongering cock and deserves the ire he has worked hard to attract - people didn't just decide one day to peg him as a cock so I say let the fucker enjoy the fruits of his labors.
This.
At the risk of having a Godwin moment, separating any artist from their personality is to me like saying Hitler liked dogs.
I don't care if Card can write - he's a homophobic arse. I don't care if Chris Brown can sing - he hits women.
Quote from: Little_Tengu on 14 February, 2013, 08:43:16 PM
Well there are just some people out there that feed off hate and anguish. Depending on how far the Gay community takes their protests it could make them look bad
But the issue isn't about 'the Gay community*', is it? It's about discrimination and fairness - doesn't matter
whose particular lifestyle is being explicitly associated with the moral collapse of society and the rise of evil, it's the fact that
someone's is (and someone's
always is, from Cathars to Taigs to Blacks to Uppity Women to Gays
et-bloody-
cetera). That the baton in this case seems to rest with people who are politically active on behalf of homosexual equality is a matter of pragmatic fact, and it's neither here nor there - there is no 'them' here. Giving vocal public bigots and their enablers a good old kicking in the reputation and bank blalance simply because they are f***ing bigots is
never a bad thing.
I would like to think that I would never go so far as to advocate censorship of Card, especially when this particular writing is unlikely to touch on the issues at hand, but making one's feelings on the man's outspoken and (let's face it) wrong beliefs known loudly is entirely appropriate. He's a bright guy, the Angel Moroni aside, maybe he'll come round to what passes for civilised thought in the early 21st. Stranger things.
If I may be drunk and childish for a minute**, Superman wouldn't want this guy writing Superman. Why should anyone else?
*Last I looked my own community had plenty of gay folk and plenty of straight folk.
** Most of my life, as it happens.
I've never heard of the chap. He can write Superman all he likes (I very rarely read it anyway) but when a hate-monger enters the limelight for any reason I will be more than happy to see his bigoted views criticised and indeed ridiculed by the larger groups of people that are exposed to him. That doesn't mean people can't read and enjoy his comics though.
Frank Miller spouts a lot of narrow-minded shite these days, but makes the debate easier by writing equally ridiculous comics.
If you want to let DC comics know your discust on putting this right wing bigot on one of thier flagship comics please sign this petition & maybe add your support to some of their other campaigns
thanks
www.allout.org
It's true that warped people can create beautiful art but it's much easier to seperate the man from the work itself when you don't know the history before hand (e.g. I have no interest in watching anything by Roman Polanski) so I can understand the uproar about this, especially considering all the good that DC did with Batwoman.
For me, the issue here is less about Card and more about DC.
Card's opinions are vile, bigoted and fringe-extremist. He says, for example, that 'many' gay people are made gay as the result of rape, molestation or 'disturbing seduction' and spend the rest of their lives wishing to be made un-gay (in the same article (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html), he suggests that if gay people want the legal rights afforded by marriage then they should just marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight).
Card has translated his status as an author into creating an audience for his political views; these are not privately held views, he has created the link between his beliefs and his work and it is entirely fair to judge one in terms of the other.
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Jim
*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree. It's natural to fear the different -- it's what we choose to do with those fears that matters.
Well said, Jim.
I was thinking about how best to make my feelings known on this matter, but they're all pretty ineffectual, really. Best I could come up with was to try to convince people to buy a rival comic book on the day of release of the Superman issues* - some low-tier Marvel or Image book with a gay main character, preferably - or to try and make drawings of Superman kissing dudes** trend on Twitter. We can do something positive with this or wallow in the ill feeling this jerk and/or his followers has produced and will likely use as a rallying point for his extreme views by playing Card as a martyr rather than a bully.
* A game to play when these issues hit is if Superman punches a woman, you take a drink. If Superman seems uncomfortable around a coloured person, you take a drink. If Superman marries Supergirl, you take a drink. If Superman marries Supergirl, then Lois, then Wonder Woman, you take a drink.
** Not in a sexual way, just kissing dudes because he's Superman.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree.
Typical bloody letterer, those guys give me the creeps. If the good Lord had wanted people to fiddle with each others' kerning, he'd have given us all Macs.
Quote from: TordelBack on 15 February, 2013, 10:40:00 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree.
Typical bloody letterer, those guys give me the creeps. If the good Lord had wanted people to fiddle with each others' kerning, he'd have given us all Macs.
True. God made Adam and Eve, not Arial and Steve. Potter.
Or something. I'll level with you, I haven't thought this one through.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AMif Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
*applause*
This is exactly right, and it shows how far we as a society have to go regarding equality.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 15 February, 2013, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AMif Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
*applause*
This is exactly right, and it shows how far we as a society have to go regarding equality.
Yep. Still have a bit to go though; in that anti-gay sentiments
aren't considered as bigoted as racists. And having lived briefly in China and known gay people there, it seems that the most populous country in the world has a verrry long way to go.
I'm involved work-wise in anti-prejudice work and while the greater part of my time has been involved in Norn Iron's sectarian divide I have also been involved in anti-homophobic work. I agree there is still a lot of work to be done but as an old fart i am also encouraged by what i often observe as a youth worker where young people are concerned. A person's sexuality is often regarded as a non issue among young 'uns, a situation that I contrast with my own teenage memories of anyone even suspected of being gay when the roof of the world threatened to cave in.
I understand what people might say about separating a person and their work, but when it's a writer you can never tell if he's going to sneak in some crazy, offensive opinion.
I'm very disappointed that DC have hired him and I won't be buying this title.
- Trout
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 15 February, 2013, 11:10:26 AMTrue. God made Adam and Eve, not Arial and Steve.
I have always wondered why someone doesn't just print a Bible with the name "Eve" replaced with the word "Steve" and then when someone says "in the Bible it says Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" you can just say "well, actually..."
This is not just me being flippant, either, because the more I think of it, the more I think this is an actual, legitimate argument, as intolerant Christians are working from their own version of the Bible anyway - no reason people who don't have a problem with gayness can't have one of their own, too.
Maybe they'd be better off just growing the fuck up and realising that 'Adam and Eve' didn't exist.
DC have really blundered with this one. The fact that he's writing Superman just makes it even more pronounced - I mean if there's one character that's supposed to symbolise what's great and good it's Superman.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM
For me, the issue here is less about Card and more about DC.
Card's opinions are vile, bigoted and fringe-extremist. He says, for example, that 'many' gay people are made gay as the result of rape, molestation or 'disturbing seduction' and spend the rest of their lives wishing to be made un-gay (in the same article (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html), he suggests that if gay people want the legal rights afforded by marriage then they should just marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight).
Card has translated his status as an author into creating an audience for his political views; these are not privately held views, he has created the link between his beliefs and his work and it is entirely fair to judge one in terms of the other.
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Jim
*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree. It's natural to fear the different -- it's what we choose to do with those fears that matters.
Everything Jim said and as for the bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y)
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 15 February, 2013, 11:46:45 AM...anti-gay sentiments aren't considered as bigoted as racists.
Interesting what you observe about China, Jayzus. I was about to suggest that the reason for the above is because God seems to have given homophobia his personal seal of approval through the wingnut interpreters of many of His diverse and antagonistic screeds - but obviously the Abramic crowd barely have a foothold there. Cad é an scéal with Shenism and all that?
QuoteCad é an scéal with Shenism and all that?
Not really sure, to be honest. I lived there for less than three months but was friends with a Swedish guy who had a Chinese boyfriend. Apparently this was a very closely guarded secret - every time my mate visited it was under the guise of the 'best friend'. According to him, homosexuality is considered non-existent over there.
Modern dictatorships don't have a good history of tolerance and acceptance, I suppose, and there's also the issue of bloodline - It seems to be very, very important to the normal Chinese family that the (father's) bloodline and name are passed on, and gay chaps don't really stand a good chance of doing that. In any case, I had just finished a long tour of Thailand, where things are very, very different, as you've probably seen or heard.
EDIT: By the way I've heard quite a few less-than-pleasant comments about black people from Chinese people too.
QuoteI'm involved work-wise in anti-prejudice work and while the greater part of my time has been involved in Norn Iron's sectarian divide I have also been involved in anti-homophobic work
Nice one. Have you met my old friend Beaky Smoochies? Oh, wait, you have, haven't you?
Quote from: Proudhuff on 15 February, 2013, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM
For me, the issue here is less about Card and more about DC.
Card's opinions are vile, bigoted and fringe-extremist. He says, for example, that 'many' gay people are made gay as the result of rape, molestation or 'disturbing seduction' and spend the rest of their lives wishing to be made un-gay (in the same article (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html), he suggests that if gay people want the legal rights afforded by marriage then they should just marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight).
Card has translated his status as an author into creating an audience for his political views; these are not privately held views, he has created the link between his beliefs and his work and it is entirely fair to judge one in terms of the other.
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Jim
*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree. It's natural to fear the different -- it's what we choose to do with those fears that matters.
Everything Jim said and as for the bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y)
I am not saying for a second that this negates centuries of church sponsored homophobia but here's a bit of a bomb dropped recently by a leading English evangelical.
http://www.redletterchristians.org/steve-chalke-drops-the-bomb-in-support-of-committed-faithful-same-sex-relationships-2/
I don't want this debate to turn all theological but just to highlight that there are divirgent opinions on this out there. I personally don't want to stone anyone though I did try to hit next doors dog with an onion once.
Quote from: The Prodigal on 15 February, 2013, 05:02:13 PM
Quote from: Proudhuff on 15 February, 2013, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM
For me, the issue here is less about Card and more about DC.
Card's opinions are vile, bigoted and fringe-extremist. He says, for example, that 'many' gay people are made gay as the result of rape, molestation or 'disturbing seduction' and spend the rest of their lives wishing to be made un-gay (in the same article (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html), he suggests that if gay people want the legal rights afforded by marriage then they should just marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight).
Card has translated his status as an author into creating an audience for his political views; these are not privately held views, he has created the link between his beliefs and his work and it is entirely fair to judge one in terms of the other.
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Jim
*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree. It's natural to fear the different -- it's what we choose to do with those fears that matters.
Everything Jim said and as for the bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y)
I am not saying for a second that this negates centuries of church sponsored homophobia but here's a bit of a bomb dropped recently by a leading English evangelical.
http://www.redletterchristians.org/steve-chalke-drops-the-bomb-in-support-of-committed-faithful-same-sex-relationships-2/
I don't want this debate to turn all theological but just to highlight that there are divirgent opinions on this out there. I personally don't want to stone anyone though I did try to hit next doors dog with an onion once.
The big problem with a lot of the religious debate surrounding homosexuality is that it focuses on selective use of Scripture. Far too often it tends to miss the parts that talk about forgiveness and focusing on personal shortcomings. At the end of the day the negative comments about homosexuality in the Bible are actually few and far between and pale into comparison compared to the overarching message about man's relationship with God. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ...."
With regard to Mr Card writing the character. Personally it doesn't really bother me because it is a character that I have never really taken to in a big way and Mr Card has not produced anything I thought worth reading in a while.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nG9jgEOD6cs/UBrHPJpME9I/AAAAAAAAA3Q/9larB2lp8f0/s1600/Kennett.jpg)
:D
Quote from: Tjm86 on 15 February, 2013, 05:16:08 PM
Quote from: The Prodigal on 15 February, 2013, 05:02:13 PM
Quote from: Proudhuff on 15 February, 2013, 02:00:34 PM
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM
For me, the issue here is less about Card and more about DC.
Card's opinions are vile, bigoted and fringe-extremist. He says, for example, that 'many' gay people are made gay as the result of rape, molestation or 'disturbing seduction' and spend the rest of their lives wishing to be made un-gay (in the same article (http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html), he suggests that if gay people want the legal rights afforded by marriage then they should just marry a person of the opposite sex and pretend to be straight).
Card has translated his status as an author into creating an audience for his political views; these are not privately held views, he has created the link between his beliefs and his work and it is entirely fair to judge one in terms of the other.
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Jim
*At the end of the day, many people are bigots in their own heads. If we're honest, we all are to some degree. It's natural to fear the different -- it's what we choose to do with those fears that matters.
Everything Jim said and as for the bible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWuXpfXSl5Y)
I am not saying for a second that this negates centuries of church sponsored homophobia but here's a bit of a bomb dropped recently by a leading English evangelical.
http://www.redletterchristians.org/steve-chalke-drops-the-bomb-in-support-of-committed-faithful-same-sex-relationships-2/
I don't want this debate to turn all theological but just to highlight that there are divirgent opinions on this out there. I personally don't want to stone anyone though I did try to hit next doors dog with an onion once.
The big problem with a lot of the religious debate surrounding homosexuality is that it focuses on selective use of Scripture. Far too often it tends to miss the parts that talk about forgiveness and focusing on personal shortcomings. At the end of the day the negative comments about homosexuality in the Bible are actually few and far between and pale into comparison compared to the overarching message about man's relationship with God. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ...."
With regard to Mr Card writing the character. Personally it doesn't really bother me because it is a character that I have never really taken to in a big way and Mr Card has not produced anything I thought worth reading in a while.
For anyone who wants to take a squint at a theology that doesn't serve as a mandate for prejudice and that imho needs reading by every Christian that thinks despising people for their sexuality is ok:
http://www.soulforce.org/resources/what-the-bible-says-and-doesnt-say-about-homosexuality/
Maybe God doesn't hate gays after all.
Quote"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ...."
That Jesus... always wanting to go first.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 15 February, 2013, 06:17:54 PM
Quote"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone ...."
That Jesus... always wanting to go first.
Magnificent.
Anyway, I'm no theologian, but given that the best possible reading of this 'God' chap is as a reflection of our communal better natures (or vice versa, if you really
must ::)), I'd be damn sure He doesn't hate gays, or those of us who like Marmite, or even the films of John Candy. Seems like He'd reserve His disapproval for those who hate their fellows for no good reason at all.
I couldn't give a monkey's. I can read and enjoy Michel Houellebecq without subscribing to his opinions or sharing his worldview, and trying to get a writer fired from a gig because you find their politics and personal opinions intolerable was the shtick of senator Joseph McCarthy. Professor Thunders McLightning Bear's idea of buying something else you'd like instead seems like a more sane response.
I appreciate the irony of a rampant and obnoxious homophobe agreeing to write the campest character in popular fiction, but I won't be buying Card's Superman comic any more than I won't be buying any other Superman comic ever.
If it turned out Karl Urban was a homophobe, I wouldn't care.
Quote from: sauchie on 15 February, 2013, 07:58:47 PM...Trying to get a writer fired from a gig because you find their politics and personal opinions intolerable was the shtick of senator Joseph McCarthy.
Ah, but I suspect that if McCarthy had applied his odious methods in the fight against discrimination in all its forms, history would view him differently.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 February, 2013, 08:07:03 PM
If it turned out Karl Urban was a homophobe, I wouldn't care.
It's time for Richmond's photo again...
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 February, 2013, 08:07:03 PM
If it turned out Karl Urban was a homophobe, I wouldn't care.
I used to think the same thing about Mad Max.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 February, 2013, 08:07:03 PM
If it turned out Karl Urban was a homophobe, I wouldn't care.
I would care that he was a homophobe, it wouldn't affect the way I view his acting skill's unless he moulded he abilities around his morals. That's when things get stickey.
QuoteIt's time for Richmond's photo again...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BDDyBmRCUAE4K6Q.jpg:large)
Oh thanks a million, Rich. I'm only just out the shower, now I need to go clean myself up again.
Quote from: sauchie on 16 February, 2013, 10:56:56 AM
Oh thanks a million, Rich. I'm only just out the shower, now I need to go clean myself up again.
That's just what Karl said.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 15 February, 2013, 08:13:53 PM
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 February, 2013, 08:07:03 PM
If it turned out Karl Urban was a homophobe, I wouldn't care.
I used to think the same thing about Mad Max.
It would take a lot and I mean
a lot to stifle my enjoyment of
the Road Warrior.
Quote from: Hawkmonger on 16 February, 2013, 12:06:50 AM
I would care that he was a homophobe, it wouldn't affect the way I view his acting skill's unless he moulded he abilities around his morals. That's when things get stickey.
What if he was playing the role of a homophobe?
Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban. Sure, he has a choice to play the role, but circumstances can change how you view an actor in a role. I don't hold Sly in any lesser regard because he was in a porno, he was skint and starving at the time (he has no excuse for some of his other films though!).
Quote from: Hawkmonger on 16 February, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban.
Why would it be a problem if it's a legitimate character?
Was
Downfall less good because it was about Hitler*?
*Obligatory Godwin's Law example.
A homophobe writing about a grown man in a spandex suit (and tight red undies worn on the outside) while flying around to save the day. Wonderfully ironic, can't wait.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 16 February, 2013, 11:46:12 AM
Quote from: Hawkmonger on 16 February, 2013, 11:43:41 AM
Then that's the problem of the script and writer/ director, not Urban.
Why would it be a problem if it's a legitimate character?
Was Downfall less good because it was about Hitler*?
*Obligatory Godwin's Law example.
If the actor playing Hitler was known to have anti-semitic views, then yes, I think it would affect it, for me at least.
Someone up the thread mentioned Polanski - and to me that's another good example. He may well make good movies, but I will never know as I will never watch them, him being a pedophile child rapist and all that, it kind of colours my opinion of him.
I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 16 February, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated.
I despise Gary Glitter and deplore his crimes, but Rock 'n' Roll (part one) (//http://) will always be a great tune. I've never understood the argument that the life of the artist invalidates or even contaminates their work; Dickens was a right fucking nob to his family, and even if I discovered Kev O'Neill was having sex with kittens I'd still love his art. I always thought Glitter was a ridiculous and repulsive figure, so having that confirmed by the authorities hasn't really affected my opinion of his (largely pish) oeuvre one fucking jot or tittle. Handily, everything Jimmy Savile was involved with was unmitigated pish, so there's no conflict there whatsoever.
Reluctantly returning the topic back to the original subject for a second, a geek pal gave me
Enders Game to read in secondary school and I enjoyed some of the ideas. I could tell even then that it wasn't especially well written and when geek pal offered to give me a loan of the other books in the series I demurred. No sense abandoning that policy to read his take on the adventures of a muscle man in red bikini briefs and matching knee-high PVC boots who "can't" have sex with women.
Only just caught this thread....
Blimey, ive read some of Card's novels before, and enjoyed them. Hadnt known about, or was aware of his views, though.
For me, like Polanski, it kinda poisons, and consigns to the rubbish bin, everything he's done.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 15 February, 2013, 08:32:18 AM
My issue with him landing the Superman gig is this: if Card held and publicly voiced* similarly intolerant opinions about black or Jewish people, he simply would not have got the job. No question. DC's decision sends a message that intolerance of gay people is somehow less bad than racism or antisemitism.
It's not, and that's what DC needs to recognise.
Yep.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 16 February, 2013, 03:16:21 PM
Someone up the thread mentioned Polanski - and to me that's another good example. He may well make good movies, but I will never know as I will never watch them, him being a pedophile child rapist and all that, it kind of colours my opinion of him.
I've always been puzzled as to why it is acceptable to work with Polanski, while fellow child rapists like Gary Glitter are castigated.
There are of course different degrees of tolerance to these things as there is in
all of life's events but I think it's a bigger problem that Polanski
never did prison-time when he should have nor was adequately punished, but his films can't be undone, aren't pieces of work made by him alone nor do any of them promote paedophilia, as far as I know.
Would I work with him if I had the chance? Considering how I feel about the nature of the crime itself, no, I wouldn't, but I can't stop others doing so nor would I, by consequence, ignore the work of those who
have worked with him, knowing what he did, and have gone on to do other things. Where does that kind of thinking stop? I certainly refuse to ignore everything about them or connected to them. That to me is too black & white and you can't know everything about everyone who produces art.
Having said that, I've never been a Savile or Glitter fan - two monstrous
serial-paedos whose work of self-promotion and general creepiness was their very public face (their 'work' or 'art') always seemed to be on show in people's faces and both were facilitated and thrived in a culture of denial, and whose evil actions now seem to have been generally known to a lot of people who never said a word of their crimes or were flat out ignored until decades later.
I've no desire and never did have, to engage with or enjoy their work, but I'm sure some still do and they're welcome to it.
Quote from: Judge Jack on 16 February, 2013, 03:48:55 PM
Blimey, ive read some of Card's novels before, and enjoyed them. Hadnt known about, or was aware of his views, though.
For me, like Polanski, it kinda poisons, and consigns to the rubbish bin, everything he's done.
So even though you didn't sense any promotion of their personal beliefs in your experience of their work, they no longer have value to you?
Glitter continues to release new material, which continues to sell - go figure.
And still earns a tidy sum of money each year from the use of his music...
But i think youve hit the nail on the head with Polanski - he never did prison time, nor was really punished for his crime. And knowing what he did, why anyone would want to work with him, is beyond me.
You have to think less of them - at the very least, for doing so.
EDIT: Just seen your last post Joe, but cant include it as a quote for some reason.
Yes, knowing what i know now, it does change things. And that colour's the full body of work, for me.
Quote from: Judge Jack on 16 February, 2013, 04:31:15 PM
And knowing what he did, why anyone would want to work with him, is beyond me. You have to think less of them - at the very least, for doing so.
Not really; I never thought of them in those terms because I never knew these people personally, considered why they took or needed to take any job, what they thought while doing so, and what they think of it now. They could've changed their minds in the intervening period but why should I need to know any of that?
Quote from: Judge Jack on 16 February, 2013, 04:31:15 PM
Yes, knowing what i know now, it does change things. And that colour's the full body of work, for me.
I can understand the coluring of Card's work but completely discarding it seems a bit extreme to me.
I'm sure there are many great works in the past by authors who had the same views as Card; there are hints in his work and anecdotes that
Orwell was a bit of a homophobe, but I'll be damned if
Nineteen Eighty-Four isn't one of the best pieces of work ever written and is the main artistic work that many behind the Iron-Curtain regard as the sole recognition by someone in 'the West' of their plight that inspired them in ways that astonishingly made manifest the 'reality' of the book in the physical world.
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 16 February, 2013, 02:52:55 PM
A homophobe writing about a grown man in a spandex suit (and tight red undies worn on the outside) while flying around to save the day. Wonderfully ironic, can't wait.
See also: "Isn't it a bit hypocritical for a company that publishes Batman comics to employ a homophobe?" or "A member of a polygamist cult is promoting traditional marriage - how does
that work, exactly?"
Panels from Card's first issue have begun to leak to the internet, too:
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BrianHague/2010-12-28_174604_Superman_and_Supergirl.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NL6T3_rhvQw/TZ9J-G_4UVI/AAAAAAAABGI/_H7jefy_cUE/s1600/Superman+Pedo.jpg)
The can't wait bit was pure sarcasm.
Truth be told, I could live the rest of my life without reading a Superman comic regardless of who writes it. But hey, DC's ploy worked - I haven't given a rat's ass about Superman since, like, ever. Yet here i am reading about and discussing him. I suspect many others in this thread fall into the same category.
Superman is a hot topic right now, because of Orson Scott Card. Card fans will check the title out, Card haters will monitor the series. Gay rights folks will keep their eyes on the comic, reporting anything that can be construed as a slur. The self-righteous lot (and they're the loudest) will be up in arms until Card's run is over. And lots and lots of people who would never read the comic will be suddenly very aware of it.
It's a good move by DC from a commercial standpoint. Ethically...well, as far as I'm concerned, if he doesn't use it as a hate platform, I could care less. And we all know DC won't allow that, so IMO there's much to do about nothing here.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 16 February, 2013, 06:09:35 PM
(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/BrianHague/2010-12-28_174604_Superman_and_Supergirl.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NL6T3_rhvQw/TZ9J-G_4UVI/AAAAAAAABGI/_H7jefy_cUE/s1600/Superman+Pedo.jpg)
Waitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwaitwait! That shit actualy got published? Wait to go and stir the crapper DC, incest is controversial to say the least.
Well let me put it this way, I've never bought a Superman comic in my life, but if DC & Rebellion decide to do a crossover pitting homophobe Supes against our Gay Dredd, I'll be the first in line.
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 16 February, 2013, 06:31:25 PM
Well let me put it this way, I've never bought a Superman comic in my life, but if DC & Rebellion decide to do a crossover pitting homophobe Supes against our Gay Dredd, I'll be the first in line.
SOLD! Every single copy! :lol:
"Gay's into the fist of Dredd OOOOHHH!"
"FREAK!"
The individual I tend to look to when seperating the art from the artist if Klaous Kinski. The man was a freaking legend of an actor, a giant who starred in many of my favourate films. The it was revealed he had sexualy abused his 6 year old daughter on a regulare basis. 'A little play thing on a silk cushion' I think she was described as. No one like's to see there idels be desicrated, and his actions don't affect how I view him as an actor, but how I view him as a human. Kinski the human was a vile, twisted bastard who I would gladly kick in the gonads, Kinski the actor is a man I would shake the hand and provide praise of the highest level. It's a moral dilema that may or may not have an answer.
The distance by which multiple posters are missing point here is quite scary. The point is that Card is a hate-mongering bigot whose views have no place in a civilised society and in the full knowledge of that fact DC Comics gave him a job writing one of their two flagship properties.
This is far less about Card and his despicable beliefs than it is about DC and the message hiring him sends.
Jim
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 16 February, 2013, 06:18:57 PM
The can't wait bit was pure sarcasm.
Pff. I
do know your opinions on superhero books by now, Matt, I was merely taking the opportunity to throw more gas on the fire of ridicule, which I think is the only sensible response to this issue as if you get angry at Card or DC you will more or less guarantee the likes of Rush Limbaugh rushing to tell their audience to buy the issue and show support for a fellow "family values Christian Republican American Patriot" or whatever. They say even bad publicity is good publicity and where the fringe Christian right are concerned that is certainly true - just look at the Westboro mob.
We should not get angry, we should redirect our energies and finances elsewhere. Instead of buying DC books, buy Al Ewing's Avengers Assemble issue(s) - doesn't matter if you hate Marvel and/or the Avengers, do something positive for a good egg instead of helping promote a hatemonger.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 16 February, 2013, 06:53:38 PM
This is far less about Card and his despicable beliefs than it is about DC and the message hiring him sends.
Jim
THIS IS my problem. DC should not employ such individuals is in the past they have shown tendencies to infringe there belief's into there work. HOWEVER, if they can show self restraint and not express there own opinions in there work, then power to him. That's just the way I see it. I can hate Card as a human for being a bigot, if his work is good (can't say i've ever read anything of his) then I can respect his work as an auther.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 16 February, 2013, 06:58:34 PM
Pff. I do know your opinions on superhero books by now, Matt,
Have I been gone from the forum for so long that I don't know what your former handle was? I guessing you're Prof Byah - amiright?
I agree with your post, though: we should stay away from it, and make it disappear. I think folks did a good job of that with Frank Miller's last bit of bile, and I think - after the initial bit of curiosity waers off, because, let's be real, there's no way DC allow even a hint of hate-mongering to make it to print - this will be forgotten.
Quote from: Jim_Campbell on 16 February, 2013, 06:53:38 PM
The distance by which multiple posters are missing point here is quite scary.
This is far less about Card and his despicable beliefs than it is about DC and the message hiring him sends.
I think it's ultimately about whether you choose to buy/read it or not. DC like any corporation will hire who the fuck they want, regardless, and no one can stop them. Topics and debates on this forum
drift, as always, Jim. It's not quite something to be
scared about.
I would suspect that this pick was meant to be more relevant to American readers. Ender's Game is a very common book for high school english courses and a lot of people have had experience with him, including myself. Ender's Game itself comes up a lot on sci-fi book lists.
Honestly a big problem with Card for me is that he jumped on board with a lot of the right-wing lunacy in the US. It caused a bit of a stir in his fan community because he started using his page to make weird pronouncements about the US election back in 2008, accepting the weird nonsense about Obama being a birther, radical terrorist, religion hater, w/e.
To get an idea of his stuff
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/index.html
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html
And right out of the gate
QuoteTHE FIRST AND greatest threat from court decisions in California and Massachusetts, giving legal recognition to "gay marriage," is that it marks the end of democracy in America.
Here he is throwing a fit over the most recent election. There's a lot of persecution complex going on.
http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/Articles-Articles-c-2012-11-07-213747.112113-Civilization-Watch.html
Complaining about Benghazi and media drowning out the "truth"
QuoteBarack Obama is still the selfish, cowardly commander-in-chief who abandons American public servants -- you didn't change him, nor did you give him any reason to change.
Claims that the government did as bad a job in Hurricane Sandy that was done in Hurricane Katrina, media is merely covering up the mess
QuoteWhen Hurricane Sandy devastated a part of America, you showed Barack Obama only in a favorable light.
Even though his administration, his FEMA, did at least as badly as the Bush administration did after Katrina, and with far less excuse, you did not run endless coverage of the people's suffering, the way you did with Bush.
Breaks Godwin's law
QuoteIf Barack Obama had a propaganda minister with the power to shut you down if you ran stories that embarrassed him or his administration, would your station, your network, your newspaper, your magazine still be in business?
If America had a Joseph Goebbels who would arrest any journalist who reported anything that would make the administration look bad, did you write or say or report anything during this election campaign that would have put you inside a jail cell?
Everybody at Fox News would have been jailed, and Fox News would have been shut down. But you already do everything you can to get people not to listen to Fox, so the actions of such a propaganda minister would merely make official what you already try to accomplish by other means.
Don't you dare say I'm lying or exaggerating, because the Democrats did try to shut down conservative talk radio, and you supported them in that effort, allowing them to get away with calling the proposed action "fairness."
You go along with the big lie every day. You did it obviously and openly in these last weeks before the election, allowing Barack Obama to conceal, cover up, lie -- all because, like good obedient party flacks, you knew that nothing was more important than keeping the Beloved Leader in power.
Benghazi again
QuoteOne choice is for the Republican House to investigate Benghazi, struggling to expose the truth about Barack Obama's high crimes and misdemeanors, both in his culpable negligence during the attack on our consulate, and in his repeated lies afterward to try to conceal his malfeasance.
Here Card pulls out the communist card then complains about being weak on terrorists, and Obama turning the healthcare system into the US into Europe's nightmare.
QuoteBut far more likely is the other alternative -- that, faced with your monolithic groupthink, your insistent flacking for the Beloved Leader, your dishonesty that is equal to his dishonesty, your emulation of Pravda, the Republicans in Congress will give up, Fox News will drop the story, it will all go away, and the Beloved Leader will continue in power.
Then, when his appeasement of our enemies results in a nuclear explosion in Tel Aviv ...
When more and more Al-Qaeda-style attacks kill more Jews and more Americans around the world ...
When Obama's incompetent and anti-scientific economic policies have the consequences that such policies always have, and the American economy collapses under the weight of debts and entitlements ...
When Obama's crushing policies result in American healthcare sinking to the low level of service, the endless waiting lists, the needless death and suffering in the name of "fairness" that already afflict Europeans and Canadians ...
When the burden of ever-steeper taxes moves capital and industry and innovation to other countries ...
Will you step forward and take responsibility, and say, "We should have known; in fact we did know, but we did not tell you"?
Will you accept accountability for your lies and omissions in support of the Beloved Leader, for your slanders of the opponents of the Beloved Leader, for your having put your ideology and group loyalty above any notion of truth and honor?
That list of bad things -- we might get lucky. Some of those bad things might not happen. After all, there are still plenty of good people trying to keep us safe and make things work well.
The Beloved Leader isn't one of them, but he thinks he is, and so he might actually learn something and change his policies. It's possible, though it hasn't happened even once during the first four years of his reign.
Or Israel might take care of the Iranian nuke for us. Jews aren't going to sit still for another holocaust, even if the intellectuals of the world -- including you -- have re-embraced fashionable anti-semitism, this time under the name "anti-zionism" or "anti-neo-conservatism."
Or the Muslim world, which is just as burdened as the rest of us by these fanatics, these murderers, these terrorists, might finally do the right thing and stop funding and protecting them.
("Anti-scientific" refers to right-wing charges of Obama pursuing a radical environmentalist agenda)
And more ranting about the media
QuoteJust because brown-shirted thugs aren't beating your opponents in the streets doesn't mean you aren't every bit as much the enemies of democracy as any Nazi or Bolshevik ever was.
Telling us the truth and letting us make informed decisions -- that was your job. That's why the press gets special protection in the Constitution. That's why you're called "the fourth estate."
Democracy did not fail us in the presidential election of 2012.
You did.
Yeah. He's really nutty, pretty much spits out what the Tea Party here in the United States does. I don't agree with the right in the US, and I'm not just going on about him because I disagree with his views. The problem is he has, especially after 2003 or so, begun to interject more of his nonsense into his works. I stopped reading about the time I picked up Shadow of the Hegemon, in which he was making very clear his views. And it went downhill from there.
Lot of this has been leaking into his work now to the point that it's almost eye-rolling. It doesn't help that really it's superficial nonsense. Look at one of his short stories set in the Ender universe:
QuoteOrson Scott Card offers a Christmas gift to his millions of fans with this short novel set during Ender's first years at the Battle School where it is forbidden to celebrate religious holidays.
oh boy
I honestly wouldn't mind if Card wasn't so insistent on jamming his views into almost everything he writes now. It's difficult to separate his works form his views now. You got some writers in the American comic industry with some batshit crazy views (Frank Miller), and they usually end up in Superman or Batman for some reason- but for the most part they aren't aggressive with turning the strip into a pulpit.
If you want to see just how much of a loon Card is, go to the US Amazon site, search Ender's Game, and read the review he wrote on his own book.
Drift alert, ;)
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 16 February, 2013, 05:15:47 PM
I can understand the coluring of Card's work but completely discarding it seems a bit extreme to me.
The Savile's and the Glitter's of this world have used smoke and mirrors, public inaction - and the distance of time, along with every trick in the book to carry on.
The condemnation should be total. As i said earlier people are
still using Glitter's music....
But for me, and more than anything, when a person is guilty of such crimes, or proudly gives free range to such views, then it simpley changes everything. And i cant view their work in the same way again.
Ill expand on one of my points, though
The case of Polanski; A man who did a runner, and who has been on the run ever since - and who has paid big money out to the person involved to smooth things over, is still making films and is still being feted.
And people know this - and yet still choose to work for him, and in essance allow him to carry on as normal. I dont feel the need to know these people personally to question why they should do this. Or to form a negative opinion of them.
His films may be great works, and no doubt put together by talented people - and if they contain genuine artistic moments then it would be foolish, with certain reservations in place, to not acknowledge this.
(In the same way people can discuss and acknowledge the cinematic artistry and innovation, in say, such films as Griffith's Birth of a Nation, or Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will).
And then hopefully acknowledge, in the same breath, what these films stand for, and what the people behind them believed in.
But my bottom line will always be, that certain instances will rob a piece of work of all its merit for me.
Quote from: locustsofdeath! on 16 February, 2013, 07:19:59 PM
If you want to see just how much of a loon Card is, go to the US Amazon site, search Ender's Game, and read the review he wrote on his own book.
What? I've never seen that, lol.
Anyways with regards to Card's involvement, I think it would be better to just boycott the comic rather than force DC to kick him off. If DC for some reason does kick him off in response to a petition (which would be extraordinary), he would likely complain about how people (the media conspiracy) are on a witchhunt after him and don't respect his artistic vision or whatever. I don't see how Superman could be a platform for his homophobia, but it'll likely be a patriotic wank, more so than usual when Superman is involved at least.
The way I see it, if he's on a strip that flops, well, he'll get fired by that force of business he loves so much and complains about people not respecting. The irony would be good there.
I have never forgiven the Mormons for that time they called at my door and I misheard them as saying "we are Moomins" and I made the terrible decision to keep listening based upon an erroneous supposition. I soon realised that the real Moomins weren't homophobic as they had always been nothing but supportive of Snufkin and Moomintroll and these people at my door were lying nutters.
Quote from: MercZ on 16 February, 2013, 08:15:28 PMI don't see how Superman could be a platform for his homophobia, but it'll likely be a patriotic wank, more so than usual when Superman is involved at least.
Superman writers have been quite ashamed of the "American Way" bit of his makeup for quite some time, actually. It reached a nadir when they even removed those words from his intro blurb on the Superman books in the early 2000s.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 16 February, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
Superman writers have been quite ashamed of the "American Way" bit of his makeup for quite some time, actually. It reached a nadir when they even removed those words from his intro blurb on the Superman books in the early 2000s.
My bad, I guess I forgot about the overreaction people had here when Superman "renounced" his US citizenship. Admittedly I haven't read much Superman for a long time, something about the whole thing always rubbed me the wrong way.
Also if anyone wants to see his really homophobe diatribe.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
QuoteNow, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.
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.
And a quote from the 2008 article
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700245157/State-job-is-not-to-redefine-marriage.html
Quote
How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Biological imperatives trump laws. American government cannot fight against marriage and hope to endure. If the Constitution is defined in such a way as to destroy the privileged position of marriage, it is that insane Constitution, not marriage, that will die.
Funny thing is really a lot of his earlier works this stuff isn't readily obvious. It just became more and more pronounced as he got older.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 16 February, 2013, 08:35:39 PM
I have never forgiven the Mormons for that time they called at my door and I misheard them as saying "we are Moomins" and I made the terrible decision to keep listening based upon an erroneous supposition. I soon realised that the real Moomins weren't homophobic as they had always been nothing but supportive of Snufkin and Moomintroll and these people at my door were lying nutters.
Moomins have better things to do than go knockin' on doors spouting dribble at reasonable folk.
Shame on you for confusing to two. ;)
QuoteAlso if anyone wants to see his really homophobe diatribe.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html
He does come up with some logic zingers:
Marriage Is Already Open to Everyone.
In the first place, no law in any state in the United States now or ever has forbidden homosexuals to marry. The law has never asked that a man prove his heterosexuality in order to marry a woman, or a woman hers in order to marry a man.
Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. And, in fact, many homosexual men have done precisely that, without any legal prejudice at all.
Ditto with lesbian women. Many have married men and borne children. And while a fair number of such marriages in recent years have ended in divorce, there are many that have not.
So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage. - Orson Scott Card.
David Gerrold wades into it: Gay sci-fi author asks DC for 'balance,' offers to write Superman (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/02/gay-sci-fi-author-asks-dc-for-balance-offers-to-write-superman/)
They were running out of people who'd actually work for them and now the fucking fish are jumping right into the boat.
Quote from: Ancient Otter on 16 February, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
David Gerrold wades into it: Gay sci-fi author asks DC for 'balance,' offers to write Superman (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/02/gay-sci-fi-author-asks-dc-for-balance-offers-to-write-superman/)
They should hire a writer who's openly critical of middle-aged, bearded magicians from the Midlands and see what transpires.
Quote from: sauchie on 17 February, 2013, 12:35:47 AM
Quote from: Ancient Otter on 16 February, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
David Gerrold wades into it: Gay sci-fi author asks DC for 'balance,' offers to write Superman (http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/02/gay-sci-fi-author-asks-dc-for-balance-offers-to-write-superman/)
They should hire a writer who's openly critical of middle-aged, bearded magicians from the Midlands and see what transpires.
Isn't that Grant Morrison..?
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 17 February, 2013, 08:07:01 AM
Quote from: sauchie on 17 February, 2013, 12:35:47 AM
They should hire a writer who's openly critical of middle-aged, bearded magicians from the Midlands and see what transpires.
Isn't that Grant Morrison..?
Arf! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Vp642ERhM) Morrison claims to be the first writer to give a DC character their own book (i), so he must be pissed to find out the real column inches are to be had by ripping up your Uranian Society membership card. Morrison must be doubly pissed, since I'm sure he thought he would get a lot more press for depicting Superman as an Obama-Care-loving, union-affiliated godless communist in his
All-Star Superman.(i) the little-read Sebastian O, with Steve Yeowell
Aren't we doing a good job of getting Card's message out there! :D
I'm fascinated buy this line:
QuoteThe 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.
Given the levels of sexual abuse that both children and adults experience, predominantly from heterosexuals (a numbers game if nothing else), you could simply remove the word 'homosexual' from that sentence and it would read far more sensibly. How many people's shaping encounters with the sexual world have taken place in an unwanted, forced or grossly unequal context?
That's 'the dark secret of society', that 'disturbing seduction or rape or molestation' takes place all the bloody time, not that it uniquely generates homosexuals. Reading Card, it almost seems like rape and abuse wouldn't be so bad, as long as it didn't ultimately lead to same-sex love.
Also, as noted here before, the nature/nurture argument about homosexuality is so ridiculously distracting from the issue, when the truth must surely be that sexuality is
marvelously complicated, and anyone's orientation is almost certainly a mix of genes, environment, contingency and context, like everything else that determines
who that person is.
Bleeding Cool stirs the pot. (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/02/17/how-dc-dropped-other-creators-in-the-past-due-to-their-personal-views/) And posts on the thread for that article mention how there was almost no reaction to Orson Scott Card writing Ultimate Iron Man and Ender's Game comics for Marvel...
I'm pretty sure there was some out cry from those 'in the know' about Card at the time. I don't think The full scope of Card's worldview was full saturated into the comic reading public's mind back then. And those projects did a lot to bring to light Card's more grotesque views as he was more and more scrutinized.
Quote from: sauchie on 17 February, 2013, 12:35:47 AMThey should hire a writer who's openly critical of middle-aged, bearded magicians from the Midlands
Isn't that
all of them?You should check out Jason Aaron's blog where he takes the huff with Moore and announces via a blog post to a man who does not use the internet "You don't like my work then I don't like yours because it sucks so there".
Quote from: sauchie on 17 February, 2013, 09:35:18 AMMorrison claims to be the first writer to give a DC character their own book
Don't forget how he also claimed to have gone his entire career without ever using rape in his books - I for one am shocked at this admission that he didn't write Animal Man, Invisibles, or Final Crisis.
Quote from: Quack Addict on 18 February, 2013, 02:36:03 AM
Don't forget how (Grant Morrison) also claimed to have gone his entire career without ever using rape in his books - I for one am shocked at this admission that he didn't write Animal Man, Invisibles, or Final Crisis.
I wouldn't know about the other two, but someone was raped in
The Invisibles? I can remember thinking that claim was probably shite when I read
Supergods, but nothing sprang to mind.
Quote from: sauchie on 18 February, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
I wouldn't know about the other two, but someone was raped in The Invisibles?
[spoiler]Lord Fanny[/spoiler], brutally and at length.
Quote from: TordelBack on 18 February, 2013, 09:24:31 PM
Quote from: sauchie on 18 February, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
I wouldn't know about the other two, but someone was raped in The Invisibles?
Lord Fanny, brutally and at length.
Doh! By Lewis Collins too. I only remembered her being beaten up.
Quote from: sauchie on 18 February, 2013, 08:25:17 PM
I wouldn't know about the other two
In the very first Animal Man arc, Ellen is cornered in a forest by rapists. In Final Crisis, supervillains discuss how once they rule the world they're going to run a train on the underage Supergirl.
Quote
Don't forget how he also claimed to have gone his entire career without ever using rape in his books - I for one am shocked at this admission that he didn't write Animal Man, Invisibles, or Final Crisis.
Not to mention Dan fucking Dare, again brutally and at length, and a teenage Britney Spears, by a robot. I love Grant Morrison's stuff, and find his interviews highly entertaining, but he doesn't half talk shite sometimes.
Doom Patrol, 1989. Grant's character Crazy Jane was the victim of childhood sexual abuse.
It's difficult to see how he could come out with that no rape in my work line with a straight face.
Quote from: GordonR on 19 February, 2013, 12:11:52 AM
It's difficult to see how he could come out with that no rape in my work line with a straight face.
Because he's an MBE and you're a lowly subject.
Talking about anti-gay writers - guess who just got a submission with a seriously homophobic vibe to it. Hoo-bloody-rah. Pass me my rejection stick.
Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 19 February, 2013, 01:30:24 AM
Talking about anti-gay writers - guess who just got a submission with a seriously homophobic vibe to it. Hoo-bloody-rah. Pass me my rejection stick.
Colour me curious. Are you aloud to disclose such guff for ridiculing? ::)
Probably shouldn't - but if you see me at a convention I'll take you to his stand and point at him whilst loudly explaining it.
Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 19 February, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
Probably shouldn't - but if you see me at a convention I'll take you to his stand and point at him whilst loudly explaining it.
Thought Bubble? Already looking forward to it. ::)
It truely is scary how some people choose to abuse the median.
Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 19 February, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
Probably shouldn't - but if you see me at a convention I'll take you to his stand and point at him whilst loudly explaining it.
Eeek... better keep my head down...
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 February, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 19 February, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
Probably shouldn't - but if you see me at a convention I'll take you to his stand and point at him whilst loudly explaining it.
Eeek... better get my head down...
bet that's what you said to Karl
Quote from: Proudhuff on 19 February, 2013, 04:16:46 PM
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 19 February, 2013, 03:37:55 PM
Quote from: CrazyFoxMachine on 19 February, 2013, 01:11:00 PM
Probably shouldn't - but if you see me at a convention I'll take you to his stand and point at him whilst loudly explaining it.
Eeek... better get my head down...
bet that's what you said to Karl
Well, it *was* our wedding night...
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2013/02/orson-scott-card-controversy-could-draw-in-enders-game-movie/
I know this is cheating but this update is quite worrying.
In all seriousness, there's no way this will damage the film's propects.
What a vile little man OSC is. >:(
Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 February, 2013, 12:51:20 AMIn all seriousness, there's no way this will damage the film's propects.
I don't think anyone believes it will, but it does change how the film can be marketed if OSC is now a no-no for promotional events in case people show up to badger him about his views, or even just show up to politely ask a question which he can either answer honestly, evade, decline to acknowledge, or lie - no matter what he does it's fuel for either the pro or anti camps and not the kind of PR the movie people want surrounding their 110 million dollar movie based on a pro-war book that is "approved reading" in US military libraries.
All the same, I'd be surprised if they didn't already have some sort of plan for this eventuality in their original marketing strategies as Card's views weren't exactly secret.
Quote from: Richmond Clements on 14 February, 2013, 10:41:58 PM
Quote from: Lightning McQuack on 14 February, 2013, 10:19:48 PM
Card is a homophobic hatemongering cock and deserves the ire he has worked hard to attract - people didn't just decide one day to peg him as a cock so I say let the fucker enjoy the fruits of his labors.
This.
At the risk of having a Godwin moment, separating any artist from their personality is to me like saying Hitler liked dogs.
I don't care if Card can write - he's a homophobic arse. I don't care if Chris Brown can sing - he hits women.
Chris Brown can't sing and is a talentless halfwitted thug. And Rihanna's fucking shit too.
Not sure what my view on this is. Certainly it's impossible to entirely remove an artist and his beliefs from the artist and his art.
But going back to music examples, do I allow some of PE's more dubious opinions (at the time) to detract from the fact that 'It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back' is one of the greatest albums ever made?
I do not
& it's off.
http://www.nerdsraging.com/2013/03/06/noted-bigots-superman-story-shelved-after-artist-bows-out/ (http://www.nerdsraging.com/2013/03/06/noted-bigots-superman-story-shelved-after-artist-bows-out/)
Excelent article but grud some of those comments are nauseating. >:(
Shame that it took this to literally fall apart in front of them for DC to say its over.
Chris Sprouse makes a shedload of new fans and tosses DC management a massive bone there.
Couldn't read the article for long the bold white on the black back ground made my eyes go funny.
V
Aye, it did that to me as well. Properly so.
As someone said (I think over at Bleeding Cool) its great that a comic strip has been kiboshed but the next thing is if the same thing can be done to a big budget hollywood movie starring Harrison Ford and Ben Kingsley then we know that we're making progress.