“‘ “I find the comparison between civil rights based on race and supposed new rights being granted for what amounts to deviant behavior to be really kind of ridiculous. There is no comparison. A black as a person does not by being black harm anyone. Gay rights is a collective delusion that’s being attempted. And the idea of ‘gay marriage’ — it’s hard to find a ridiculous enough comparison.’” — Orson Scott Card
The latest post-conference mishagosh comes to us courtesy of the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA), which gave this year’s Margaret A. Edwards Award to Orson Scott Card for his works, Ender’s Game (1985) and Ender’s Shadow.
If you know anything about Card’s views about homosexuality — or about the Edwards award,which “recognizes an author’s work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world” — that’s like the Anti-Defamation League giving Bobby Fisher a lifetime achievement award.
In all fairness to the committee, if they had asked the general question “what do we know about Orson Scott Card” (and whether you think the committee should have done that is open for discussion; I say yes, that’s due diligence), it would have taken some effort to uncover Card’s virulent homophobia, and you’d almost have to be looking for it.
A Google search for Orson Scott Card (10 results per page) lists 9 neutral or positive sites about OSC. I had to get to get to the 10th link to read a Salon article (by Donna Minkowitz, a lesbian, no less) in which the author notes on the first page, “But I’d somehow failed to ascertain that Card was a disgustingly outspoken homophobe.”
(Note: the spell-check in WordPress doesn’t even recognize “homophobe” as a word. Then again, it also doesn’t recognize “WordPress.”)
The real damage is in that bastion of impartiality, Wikipedia. Card’s Wikipedia article barely references his opinions about homosexuality, and only in an external link; to get a fuller story, you’d have to go to the Talk page and then look for it. You certainly won’t find Card’s own words on the topic, which include:
Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
Dudes and dudettes, that’s hard-core! Even most “compassionate conservatives” don’t speak that directly, not even when they agree with Card.
But if you read this blog you know I have written that Wikipedia often seems more like a Secret Treehouse Club than everyone’s encyclopedia. Card’s Wikipedia page isn’t a biography, it’s an encomium by true believers who maintain fierce control over Card’s myth.
As for Bobby Fisher, his Wikipedia page references Fisher’s anti-Semitism. Despite all the babble on Card’s Talk page, if there’s a consistent rule about what can be said about an author, I’ll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
Besides, as Tracy Nectoux said on GLBTRT-L, short of saying gays should be trucked to death camps, homophobic comments by famous people don’t warrant sustained attention in the public sphere. This tsuris only occasioned a strong article in School Library Journal and mild back-pedaling from the awards committee, who said that they hadn’t researched Card prior to this award (I cringe when “information professionals” say things like that) and furthermore — ladies and gentlemen, prepare to hoist an eyebrow or two — “personal views aren’t part of the selection criteria.”
In terms of who we as a profession honor as an association — or in terms of any work effort — we need to make clear-eyed choices. We don’t get a lot of choices in our lifetime, really, not for awards, or books to read, or people to love. Card took up time and energy that could have been directed to someone else. It wasn’t intentional, but what’s done is done.
Oh well. Next year in Jerusalem.
If the award did any good, it is this: many more librarians know the truth about Orson Scott Card.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Google Features MPOW in Library Newsletter - 2006
- Transparency, Objectivity, and Independence--Or Not? - 2005
61 responses so far ↓
1 Elver // Jan 20, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think you’re referring to the Firefox web browser built-in spell-check.
Well, you gotta admit, Bobby Fisher was waaaay more outspoken about his beliefs than Card. I’m not too familiar with Card’s background, but if he’s so private about it as Google’s search results seem to suggest (you had to dig through a whole lot of links to even find a reference to it) then it makes sense that it’s not mentioned on Wikipedia. You can’t list every little detail about everyone.
This actually makes sense. Mahatma Gandhi, for example, was a huge racist. In his newsletter he wrote in four different languages about the depravity of the black people. Yet the dude did do a lot of good and was properly recognized for his work.
“Clear-eyed choices” are bad and will be even worse in the future. Today pretty much everyone blogs. Sometimes we write stuff we’re not proud of and even if we delete it, Google and the Internet Archive will still have it.
Suppose a good man, 20 years from now, builds four children’s hospitals with his own money and we want to give him an award for his work. But it turns out that 20 years earlier — today — he wrote a blog post where he called a black person by the n-word. Let’s say he was mugged by a black person and wrote the post in anger. Should we not award him for building four children’s hospitals just because he expressed racist views years ago?
This problem is going to get much, much worse as the current Facebook/Blogspot/Wordpress generation grows up.
We have to reward what people do, not what they say or have said. Everyone says stuff they’re not proud of. Back in the old days we said it in private. Now we say it on the internet and everyone can find it 20 years from now. Gotta adapt to the times. Reward actions, not words.
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t exactly hiding his opinions to begin with.
So the guy is against gay sex. I’ve got news for you: so is almost every Christian. George W. Bush is against gay sex. Almost every presidential hopeful in the primaries is against gay sex and gay marriage.
Every Muslim is against gay sex. It’s part of their faith.
I’m not saying I approve of homophobia just because it’s a pretty common view. Homophobia is a bad thing. People are suffering because of it. What I’m saying is that you’re wasting your outrage and attempting character assassination on a guy who’s not really all that different from, well, the majority of United States citizens.
2 K.G. Schneider // Jan 20, 2008 at 11:25 am
“So the guy is against gay sex. I’ve got news for you: so is almost every Christian.”
To start with, he’s against gay love and relationships.
As for Christians, that’s just not true. There are welcoming denominations. There are many points of view in society, and Card represents an extremism that deserves to be singled out for its… well… singularity, and certainly not hidden in astroturf.
Also, all I am attempting to do is correct the record. I don’t have “outrage”; really, I don’t. I just have an interest in the truth (and in giving the truth some Google-juice). I am also sure there are gay people who are going to be far more uncomfortable that I wrote this post than were ever made uncomfortable reading Card’s own thoughts about them.
Anyway, thanks for posting — it’s always good to get discussion.
3 John // Jan 20, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Wow, I had no idea OSC harbored such feelings. I’m always let down when I find out artists and authors whose work I really like have some outrageous views on certain issues–especially those I feel strongly about. It’s times like that this that I try really hard to separate the art from the artist, but I’ve never really thought that was possible. Plus I think the whole notion that the art isn’t part of the artist is bullshit.
“If the award did any good, it is this: many more librarians know the truth about Orson Scott Card.”
I think that’s a good way to look at it, but you’re right on about doing due diligence.
4 Rachel // Jan 20, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Oy. Put me down as one librarian who didn’t know this.
5 K.G. Schneider // Jan 20, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Hey, you know what? Until someone pointed it out to me a couple of years ago, I didn’t know this, either. It’s like the time a few years back Sandy and I rented “White Christmas,” thinking it might be good to see with friends, and were we ever grateful that didn’t happen; it turns out to be incredibly racist.
6 Elver // Jan 20, 2008 at 8:01 pm
A guy who, rather privately and rather rightfully from a purely logical standpoint, points out that civil rights and gay rights are two different things… THAT is what you consider “extremism”?
Extremism is when a guy straps on a bomb and blows up a bus full of children. Extremism is female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation. Extremism is when people fly a passenger jet into a skyscraper. Extremism is when a woman has to find four male witnesses to testify that she was raped or she’ll be hanged for the crime of fornication.
Using the word “extremism” to describe a guy who doesn’t see civil rights and gay rights as two sides of the same coin is… I’m sorry, but that’s just stupid. There’s a lot of pure evil in the world and if you use big words to describe small things, you’re confusing the issue.
Saying politically incorrect things is not extremism in any way. If you start doing character assassinations on everyone you disagree with, you’ll end up with a world where everyone is a liar. I’d rather have a neo-nazi white supremacist as my neighbor than a guy who hates black people, but keeps it all bubbled inside himself. At least the former is honest and open about it while the latter is likely to one day explode and go on a shooting spree.
7 Colleen // Jan 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I don’t know why everyone is so surprised about this - I thought OSC was pretty public about his devout Mormonism. Either way, his personal views don’t really negate the incredible impact his books have had, however much you may be disgusted with his own beliefs. And it’s not like he’s the only one who doesn’t equate civil and gay rights - he’s just a lot more honest about it than the others who separate the two (so please note, he’s not a “singularity,” especially given that nearly 50% of the US population agrees with him, given the laws that have been passed…and those that have not, in the majority of cases .) As librarians who are all for intellectual freedom (or so we say), you’d think you’d appreciate the fact that OSC is ballsy enough to say so in this oh-so-politically-correct world.
Ender’s game still remains one of the most influential books of our time, regardless how we feel about the author’s personal views. Honoring him as an author has nothing to do with his views, and when you equate the two and suggest we consider that, you are attempting to equate literary value with personal belief. That flies in the face of everything I stand for as a librarian, and every ethic I’ve been taught. Do we censor Das Kapital because we think Marx was a crackhead, or Mein Kampf because Hitler committed genocide? Would you deny the power that those tomes have had on generations of people? Shame on you for equating the person with the book.
8 John // Jan 20, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I think it’s pretty extreme to deny the right of two people who are in love to get married. All the atrocities you describe are seeded from the same fear that feeds homophobia. It doesn’t sit well with many librarians when we inadvertently endorse someone who contributes to that fear.
9 Tim Spalding // Jan 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm
The “secret tree house club” quote is priceless and dead-on. You see the same thing on many such pages, both right and left. Sufficiently controversial topics get attention from both sides, but the weeds of a topic are written by friendly partisans and deeply unbalanced as a result.
10 Laura // Jan 21, 2008 at 3:48 am
I’m reading through the latest Enderverse book right now, in fact. Shadow of the Giant.
Card’s politics as a whole are well known to sci-fi fans, especially those who disagree with him. He’s a Mormon and a political and social conservative. Both of these things come through in his fiction in subtle and not-subtle ways.
The question is, should someone be put up for a background check before receiving a literary award? Is it possible to separate someone’s beliefs and their writing on their own time from their fiction aimed at a young adult audience that doesn’t explicitly present those beliefs? Do we really need a political litmus test for literary awards, now?
I’m a fan of Card’s who doesn’t agree with him on many issues, but to me this doesn’t diminish his work. I just ignore his Web site and current-events essays when he sticks them in the back of his books.
I’m reminded of when pro-life bloggers learned that Daniel “Lemony Snicket” Handler gives substantial donations to Planned Parenthood. Many forbade their children to read the books anymore, even when checked out from the library. Why does this matter?
11 K.G. Schneider // Jan 21, 2008 at 7:55 am
Big words for small things — that’s a giveaway, as is the phrase “politically correct.”
12 K.G. Schneider // Jan 21, 2008 at 8:02 am
Tim, I’m coming up with a list, not sure how I’ll work it into a post… maybe myths? Like, “turnkey is a myth” (for library software), NPOV is a myth…
13 David // Jan 21, 2008 at 8:36 am
Do people still describe software as “turnkey”? I remember seeing it in ads back in the day, but let’s be honest, even houses, the origin of the term, aren’t turnkey (no, not even new, bespoke houses).
14 K.G. Schneider // Jan 21, 2008 at 8:52 am
Depends on how you define “turnkey.” I’ve definitely heard “off the shelf” — though not from vendors. I’m not necessarily referencing vendors with that list, btw.
Also, turnkey/off-the-shelf isn’t necessarily a myth for some layers of the software — Local WorldCat is an example, Bibliocommons another. There’s a school of thought that says we should leave the interface alone and worry about customizing the BACK end to match local workflow.
15 K.G. Schneider // Jan 21, 2008 at 8:54 am
–> suddenly lusting for a new, bespoke house. (Not that our house isn’t lovely.)
16 David // Jan 21, 2008 at 9:38 am
Sorry ’bout that, chief. My current house is “semi-bespoke”: plans selected from sheaf of builder options, customized in the way that new houses are. But, interestingly enough, we were the first, and last, people to select this model.
17 K.G. Schneider // Jan 21, 2008 at 10:21 am
“Do we censor Das Kapital because we think Marx was a crackhead, or Mein Kampf because Hitler committed genocide? Would you deny the power that those tomes have had on generations of people? Shame on you for equating the person with the book.”
Whoa — censorship, shame, and Hitler, all in one comment!
I certainly do not deny the power Mein Kampf had over generations of people… though I would have to leap over dozens of rhetorical hedges to get from there to “and thus, it was a good thing (smart, timely, politically wise) that YALSA honored Orson Scott Card.”
As a librarian, I fully agree that a library is a place for all books — most urgently, those we disagree with. It is why, when I was just a babybrarian in New Jersey, I forced myself to keep my face neutral and not project my opinion every time I helped a patron find The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which was more often than you’d think).
But when it comes time to honor writers, then we do have to look at their full opus. An author’s works exist in relation to one another. Card is clearly proud of his homophobic writing.
As for Orson Scott Card being “ballsy” enough to share his views, I know far too many people who have lived their lives in the closet, or taken their lumps for living fully open lives in a homophobic society, to appreciate his “bravery.”
18 Jon Gorman // Jan 21, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Elver,
I agree with kgs about the extremism. It doesn’t come just from the fact he disagrees with what you consider “politically correct”. There can be extremist speech. Advocating jail for actions that in no way injuries other members of the public seems extremist to me. In fact, I can only really think of one or two other suggestions that would be more extreme. Note I’m not advocating censorship here, but it is still an extreme view on the continuum of possible positions on the issue.
I personally have a huge issue with keeping laws on the books that govern the behaviour of consenting adult individuals.
I also have to wonder where exactly you are getting your statistics or realistically what they matter. Certainly the majority of Christians I know don’t seem to have a problem with homosexual couples. Even if there is a majority, one of the fundamental concepts of this nation is that the laws still to respect the rights of the individual.
I must say it’s an issue that’s always made me pause and think. I know there is writing and works created by people who were racist, xenophobic, homophobic, radical right, radical left, and just play crazy that I enjoy. It’s not an easy issue for me how the work must be judged in relation to the artist. It seems more clear cut when the award goes just for a particular work.
However, as Karen points out that this works supposedly goes for all of an author’s contribute to young adult literature. The question then becomes what of his writings that might be accessible for young people and if works were purposely excluded due to their nature.
Ah well, something to chew on. I think if I had been on the committee I certainly would have wanted to discuss this issue.
19 Elver // Jan 21, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Define marriage. Two gays can live together just fine. Two gays can’t get a Christian wedding, because Christianity does not recognize gay marriage and that’s okay — that’s part of religious freedom. What sets gay marriage apart from regular marriage is that a regular marriage is recognized by the state and the married couple gets a few extra joint rights. For example, if one of them dies and there’s no will, the other gets the stuff.
“Marriage” is a symbolic label we use to describe this.
The difference between a regular marriage and two gay people living together and loving each other is a piece of state-issued paper and a couple of extra laws that apply to the couple and which could largely be replicated using a contract between the two people.
And you call this extremism? Are you frickin’ kidding me?
Wow, that’s an over-generalization if I ever saw one. I have another one for you: all the atrocities I described are seeded from the same intolerance that feeds the fear of homophobes.
A giveaway of what? Are you trying to imply that I’m a homophobe in some roundabout way so you could discredit my views without actually coming out and claiming that I’m a homophobe? Or without actually offering a reasoned counterpoint to what I’m saying?
NPOV is a myth… Wow. Okay. I’d like to see the logic behind that.
Who the hell cares if it was “smart, timely or politically wise” for YALSA to honor Card? The dude got the frickin’ award for his books. For the positive effects that his books have had on the younger generation.
If you turn an award into some kinda social merit badge that’s given out to people when it’s “smart, timely, and politically wise”, you’re taking away the value of the award. You’re being dishonest. You’re being a liar. If you say that you’ll give the award to the guy whose books have changed the world for the better and then instead of doing that, you give the award to the guy you simply happen to agree with, you’re being a dirty liar.
If you only want to award the people you agree with, then call it just that: “an award for agreeing with me.” If you want to award a guy whose books have had great, positive effects on everyone, you award the guy whose books have had great, positive effects on everyone.
No, we don’t. There’s enough dirt in everyone’s background that even if we didn’t find anything right now, it’s sure to come up later and bite us in our collective asses.
Mahatma Gandhi was a racist with an irrational hatred of black people. He slept with naked girls and gave enemas to them every morning. Yet the dude did a lot of good and has been rightfully recognized for the good he has done.
Dalai Lama took money from the CIA to fund an anti-Chinese terrorist training camp on United States soil. And while this was going on, he was writing books about how he is against every kind of violence and so should everyone else be.
Back when Tibet was under Lama rule, they had a very simple caste system: monks and slaves. If a slave did anything that the monks didn’t like, his eyes would be gouged out or he could even have been killed. There were no human rights under Lama rule in Tibet. Yet I fully recognize that Dalai Lama’s books have a message of peace and he has been rightfully awarded for spreading this message. Despite being a hypocritical slavemaster.
We need to award and punish people for what they have done, not for what they think about or what views they hold. I don’t want to get into thoughtcrime territory.
You are equating views with actions again. This is wrong.
I do not like the way women are treated in Islam, for example, and I’ve expressed my views openly, but that does not mean I will physically assault a Muslim man when I see one or that I won’t hire him if he’s really the best candidate.
Punish a man for what he does, not for his views.
20 Susie Lorand // Jan 21, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Elver wrote: “The difference between a regular marriage and two gay people living together and loving each other is a piece of state-issued paper and a couple of extra laws that apply to the couple and which could largely be replicated using a contract between the two people.”
May I suggest that before you dig yourself any deeper into this particular rhetorical hole, you try researching the costs of drawing up the legally sound contracts that would replicate all the rights and privileges of marriage for a same-sex couple? It’s not just “a couple of extra laws”. I have watched the effects on friends who are same-sex couples of the inequality in marriage laws. It’s not fair, it’s not trivial, and it does matter.
Others have already begun to refute the claim that “almost every Christian” is “against gay sex”. I just wanted to point to my family, my congregation, large parts of the Episcopal Church in the U.S., and some other denominations as evidence against the claim.
If you are open-minded enough to want to explore the topic further, I suggest you try to see the new documentary “For the Bible Tells Me So” (http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/), which addresses the relationship between homosexuality and Christianity.
21 John // Jan 22, 2008 at 11:45 am
Elver, I was not a practicing Christian when I married my spouse, ergo I must have done it so we could file jointly.
That’s neither here nor there, however.
Since when does not giving someone an award equate to censorship? I don’t get awards every day–does that mean I’m being silenced?
An award of this type sends the message that we endorse this author. That doesn’t just mean, the author’s works, but the entire package. Being as we’re not bookstores, and presumably interested in the entire truth, insomuch as it can be found, do we really want to anoint someone who is biased in such a malevolent way? Especially to teens, many of whom are beginning to discover that they themselves are gay?
I really did love the Ender books, but that doesn’t give me the right to overlook this other side of their author. ALA routinely celebrates authors–not just their work, but who they are as people. There’s not much beyond OSC’s books to celebrate in this case, I’m afraid.
22 Pattern Recognition » Blog Archive » Orson Scott Card: the author and the work // Jan 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm
[...] with the recent Orson Scott Card controversy in libraryland, and I respect nearly everyone who has taken a strong stance against the decision by the YALSA to award OSC the Margaret A. Edwards award for adolescent literature for [...]
23 Anne in AZ // Jan 22, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“So the guy is against gay sex. I’ve got news for you: so is almost every Christian. ”
Can’t…help it…must explode…now…Mustn’t start war on…Karen’s Blog…mustn’t…list all Christian denominations open and affirming to all persons…must not ask if a person who is accepting and affirming of gay’s having the right to have sex is…not a Christian…must lie down now…too dizzy….
24 K.G. Schneider // Jan 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’d like to take Elver to one of our interfaith services in the area, if not take him church by church around town. Not every church in town is welcoming, but I can name a half-dozen that are, including United Church of Tallahassee, where my partner is the pastor!
25 Melissa Jeffrey // Jan 22, 2008 at 1:54 pm
I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, i.e. against homophobia in all its forms. I have a hard time, however, of not awarding an author because of one of his viewpoints. He won a YALSA award, not a humanitarian one. And perhaps he shouldn’t have been awarded it, although Ender’s Game has kind of been a fundamental book to a lot of people. In fact, I decided to write a comment partly because I am reading from his Women of Genesis series, in which I have never seen a more nuanced portrayal of women. It makes me want to read the Bible again, even though I am thoroughly agnostic.
26 K.G. Schneider // Jan 22, 2008 at 2:45 pm
–> backpedaling slightly to note that “fat” is actually a compliment…
27 Laura // Jan 22, 2008 at 5:43 pm
A compliment to modify “homophobe”?
28 K.G. Schneider // Jan 22, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Yes, well, I painted myself in a corner there!
29 Elver // Jan 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm
The point was that this extra cost could, in no sensible way, be called “extremism”. If it was impossible, I’d agree to “serious discrimination”, but if you want to call that “extremism”, you have a seriously warped sense of scale.
Oh, please. You’re creating a straw man argument here. What I was saying is that if your official award criteria is X and your unofficial award criteria is Y where X and Y are very different things, you’re basically being a liar. You say you’re giving the award for X when in actuality you are giving it for Y.
That’s dishonesty.
Well, no. The award was given for the positive effects that the author’s works have had on a group of people. It’s not an endorsement of the author, it’s an endorsement of those works that he got the award for.
Bill Clinton got several honorary doctorates from different universities. These were endorsements of his work as the President of the United States. These honorary doctorates were not endorsements of adultery and oral sex. Just, you know, to clear things up for you a bit.
Well, first of all, we’re really not “anointing” anyone. Secondly, kids should be exposed to a multitude of views, not just one — be it for or against homosexuality. The world is a messy place. If you shield your kid from all that, you’re just setting him up for major disappointment and failure later in life. Plus there’s a thing called “parenting” that you may or may not have heard of. Supposed to be a good thing, especially if you have kids.
Well, yeah, some “Christians” pick and choose more than others. The Bible is clearly against homosexuality. Funny thing is, there’s all these different groups who all call themselves the true Christians, but they disagree on even the most basic things about their faith. So who are Christians? Those who believe in the Bible. What does the Bible say? Homosexuality is bad. If the Bible is the infallible word of God and it clearly says that homosexuality is not okay, then how on Earth could you possibly be for homosexuality and still call yourself a “Christian”? It’s like George W. Bush “spreading democracy” in Iraq.
There’s a huge difference between justifying your views with a book and getting your views from a book. Most religious people seem to get those two confused. I think the term for that would be “intellectual dishonesty”.
Excellent point.
30 joshua m. neff // Jan 23, 2008 at 6:42 am
Elver, you did it! You’ve showed how millions of religious people are guilty of intellectual dishonesty! You’ve proven that Karen’s post was wrong, as were comments here by John and others! You showed us all that your reasoning is superior!
So, what would you like your prize to be? Would you like Karen to write a follow-up post in which she acknowledges that you were right and she was wrong? Would you like an award you can put on your mantle? Would you like a medal that you can show to people at dinner parties? (Because that would impress people!)
Seriously, what’s your goal here? To get Karen to acknowledge that you’re right, even though she’s shown no inclination to do so? To impress us all with your biblical scholarship (even though Karen is married to a Christian pastor who I imagine–and I realize I’m making a wild stab in the dark here–knows far more about what the Bible clearly says and doesn’t say than you do)? If you win this argument in these comments, if everyone who’s posted here openly states that they think you’re right, what do you get? What do you get (and what do you lose) if nobody agrees with you and keeps countering your arguments?
31 K.G. Schneider // Jan 23, 2008 at 9:40 am
I wish Elver had been at Sandy’s campus Bible/pizza study last night (pizza is part of her campus theology) where she passed around the section about Sodom and Gomorrah and asked the students to find the parts about homosexuality. The students had a great time (and of course found nothing).
I don’t say this sort of thing very often, but I will now. Elver is young. The photo on his blog makes that clear. He’s scowling and he has a beer bottle in his mouth. (I drink beer too, but I usually smile when I do so, particularly if it’s a Red Hook ESB.)
Elver has that certainty of youth. He knows what other people think. He knows what Christians think. He knows what the Bible says. In fact, he’s so sure of himself that he doesn’t need to test his assumptions. And he thinks that if he filibusters long enough I’m going to be persuaded (or that readers of this blog will be persuaded).
The nice thing about aging is that you gain a lot of self-doubt (something that I think never really happened for George Bush, but that’s another story). You explore your ideas a little more. You try to see as many sides of the issue (which is why I cut YALSA a large swath here; I don’t agree with them but I put my focus on my own take on Card, not on their decision).
Elver, you can keep posting here if you like. There’s no page limit. But I’ve codified myself on the Web for eighteen years (before it *was* the Web), and in some cases I’ve come to rue that.
32 Liza // Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37 am
Gosh, there’s so much here when I show up late to the party — I hardly know where to start.
* OSC’s virulent homophobia has been well known and much discussed in the sf-fan community for many years. I’m surprised that YALSA didn’t have more overlap with that community.
* I’m a lesbian in a Christian marriage that isn’t recognized by law. It was conducted as an interfaith ceremony by a Christian minister and a dear friend of ours who is a lesbian rabbi.
* When my partner and I moved, we joined a mainstream Presbyterian church where we were fully welcomed, as was our toddler son. Now I teach Sunday school to 4 year olds — and they and their parents all know who my son and partner are.
The difference between protecting from censorship and honoring are unbelievably vast. Of course OSC’s work belongs in the library. I no longer enjoy it as much as I did before I understood the context in which it was written — which also happened when I tried to re-read Heinlein as an adult and saw how racist and sexist much of the subtext was (and sometimes the overt plotlines).
But when you are honoring someone for their work, that context becomes important. Do we want to hold up a virulent homophobe as a role model for young adult readers? Naturally, opinions will differ on that, but I would expect most of YALSA and the library profession to say no.
33 Anne in AZ // Jan 23, 2008 at 11:41 am
Well…once again someone has, if I understand this correctly, condemned the entire UCC to hell since the denomination’s Christianity is suspect in the light of particular interpretations of particular versions of the Bible. Not that’s it’s an original accusation. Rather worn, in fact.
Point well taken about the certainty of youth. When I first became a librarian I knew exactly how everything should e run. Now I haven’t a clue. I have definitely learned never to “put a period where God has placed a comma.”
Elver, I hope you will continue to learn and investigate and grow all aspects of your faith .
Done being dizzy now…back to libraryland.
34 Elver // Jan 23, 2008 at 1:48 pm
This is a bit like passing out the first ten pages of Ender’s Game and challenging students to find homophobic sentences there. And when they can’t find any, you believe that you have proven that Card is not a homophobe. Yay.
It’s ironic how you claim that all of someone’s views should be taken into consideration when giving an award, but judge the Bible’s homophobia based on chapters which, while implying it, don’t really mention it very clearly.
Leviticus 20:13 would have been much more fun for the kids: “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” And that’s not all.
Haha. Oh, wow. Nice. I stand up for honesty and for the right to free speech and what do I get from these self-appointed angels of justice? A lengthy character assassination that doesn’t even begin to deal with anything I’ve said, but focuses almost completely on what I look like, what I drink, and how I’m not a Christian.
You’ve got it backwards. It’s not about persuasion. I’m not looking to make you trust me and then adopt my views through trust. Which is what persuasion is. I’m simply pointing out the errors in your reasoning. Which you’ve countered by saying that I look young and drink beer. Nice going there.
35 K.G. Schneider // Jan 23, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Elver, are you practicing for slashdot? Just wondering… I’m leaving comments open here but I think everyone has said what they had to say. On Dancer, on Prancer!
36 Rachel // Jan 23, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Elver, if you’re going to play that game, I’m sure you, oh, don’t mix wool with linen… keep kosher… and adhere to all those other Levitical injunctions, right? EVERY denomination and every Christian “picks and chooses” and ultimately reads the Bible through their own lens.
37 Debi // Jan 23, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Having just read through this thread though from beginning to end for the first time, I’m forcing myself to return to the actual point of the original blog post, despite the pull to be distracted by the discussion of Leviticus and beer…
Regardless of whether you are in favor of any number of rights for men who love men or women who love women, it seems clear (and agreed-upon) that OSC does not care for the concept. OK, agreed? Good.
Now, the question that comes up with regard to the YALSA award is — does giving an award to OSC for his literary work seem proper, given his personal politics, about which he was very open? Does the award recognize the entirety of a writer’s work, or just his young adult writing?
Let’s ask YALSA’s web site, shall we? It says on the Edwards Award page that the award is for “an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work” and that “It recognizes an author’s work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world.”
So no, this is not an award just for the young adult literature by OSC. It’s an award for him, AND it’s an award recognizing how he has contributed to making teens feel about themselves and their place in the world.
Well, then it seems to me (and obviously not everyone will agree) that honoring OSC implies that his character is also being honored. It’s an award for AN AUTHOR and for his work, both.
All that said, in the end, the important question here is whether or not an author’s politics should play into a judgment of his or her literary contribution as a whole. I believe it should — and perhaps that’s because, as a writer myself, I have a personal stake in fighting off all that “death of the author” stuff! Does YALSA feel that way? Well, in the case of the Edwards Award, I think we’re seeing that they would probably say “nah, kill him off.” I highly doubt the Edwards committee agreed with OSC. I would guess that either they disagreed but felt it was irrelevant, or they just didn’t know. ALA, the larger organization of which YALSA is part, offers an award for GLBT literature as well, so it is difficult to imagine that they were attempting to honor OSC’s less celebratory position on same sex partnership. Someone from YALSA could answer that better.
Now, if someone would hold a Leviticus-reading party where they served beer (well, ok not beer, but maybe Patron tequila), I’d be happy to join in the rest of this scintillating conversation.
38 Emily Lloyd // Jan 24, 2008 at 12:05 am
Elver–trust me, not being able to get medical benefits for my partner is a big deal. I’m sure not about to complain that I can’t get a Christian wedding (at your church), but a City Hall one would be helpful. And it may be important to remember that that Leviticus quote is right next to the one about it being an abomination to wear two different fabrics at the same time. Leviticus is chock-full of rules even devout Christian fundamentalists wouldn’t imagine observing, seeing them as hackneyed and ridiculous. The odd thing is that they (you?) don’t see the quote on homosexual behavior as hackneyed and ridiculous as well: the writer/s of Leviticus certainly didn’t single it out as being any more important than the rest of ‘em.
That said, I’m a big queer and I’m okay with Card getting the Edwards.
http://shelfcheck.blogspot.com/2008/01/shelf-check-184.html
39 Elver // Jan 24, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Are you trying to discredit me by associating me with a website where some of the top scientists of our time hang out? Just wondering…
40 Anne in AZ // Jan 24, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Having slogged through Leviticus and having consumed beer, I’d never thought of putting the two together. Brilliant!
Grab your bibles! Kegger in the church basement!
41 Dan Kleinman // Jan 24, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“Card’s Wikipedia page isn’t a biography, it’s an encomium by true believers who maintain fierce control over Card’s myth.”
Funny! Judith Krug’s wiki page was just like that, until I got involved, that is. She may be the 40 year leader of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, but intellectual freedom didn’t comply on her wiki page until I forced the ALA to follow Wikipedia policy on wikipedia.org. Krug’s wiki page even said almost the exact same thing as Krug’s page on ala.org.
But before that, in further evidence that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I observed, “Krug’s Wikipedia page wasn’t a biography, it was an encomium by true believers who maintained fierce control over Krug’s myth.”
42 K.G. Schneider // Jan 24, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Hmmm, I wonder if we both unconsciously stole that? Because up to now I had never seen her Wikipedia page — so there’s no way I got that from you. Perhaps we should google up those terms and see if it’s a mannerism?
Oh, and now that I see it, the Talk page for Krug simply underscores what I’m saying.
Oh, and I don’t see that quote, so I am guessing that you’re just happy for a little Google juice. That can be addressed. Your comment stands. Your URL hotlink to the organization claiming to advocate for protected bibliographic organizations does not. I’m sure you’re happy to have NARAL to replace it.
43 Dan Kleinman // Jan 24, 2008 at 9:22 pm
No, no, K.G. I didn’t mean you copied from me. Rather, I copied from you. Your blog is really good/interesting, so I copied you.
44 Ruth Ellen // Jan 25, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Sandy’s campus Bible/pizza study last night”
Wow! They study pizza? Cool!
45 Hillary // Jan 25, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Well, late to the discussion but wow is this fascinating. I’m a casual reader of OSC, but only knew he was a devout Mormon - and that doesn’t automatically mean anything other tha Mormon. The key for me is that it is time for large national organizations like ALA, which can generate a lot of press and sales for an author, to get a grip on what they give awards for. Body of work alone? Judge that alone. Body of work and personal advocacy? Then judge that. It’s like U2 winning a grammy for an album vs. Bono winning a peace prize for his personal advocacy and influence on the world. Different things. But know up front, don’t backpedal or wuss out after it turns out badly. The committee needs to stand by its decision one way or the other.
46 Hillary // Jan 25, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I just read something that captured the same issue for a different book and different reason. See the current Entertainment Weekly (Feb 1) p. 79 for two responses to the current bestseller Eat, Pray, Love. One side starts with “The problem isn’t the book, it’s the author.”
47 K.G. Schneider // Jan 27, 2008 at 10:08 am
Hillary, I liked that EW review so much I read it to Sandy, who had put down the book with a “meh” halfway through.
48 the goblin in the library › Playing the Controversy Card // Jan 30, 2008 at 9:25 am
[...] going to chime in a bit late here to the heated conversation about Orson Scott Card getting this year’s Margaret A. Edwards Award to say [...]
49 Sarah Houghton-Jan (LiB) // Feb 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm
I can’t tell you what upsets me more: that Card won the award in spite of his ideas that are in clear conflict with what YALSA & ALA stand for -or- the fact that, as you point out, YALSA did not do its research ahead of time. A big fat sigh on both counts.
50 Laurie // Feb 5, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Wow! They study pizza? Cool!
Mushroom 3:16?
51 K. Scott Bailey // Feb 8, 2008 at 10:24 am
As a literature teacher, Card’s works are outstanding, and have greatly influenced my students in very positive ways. Card’s views are NOT well-known, as he doesn’t make a big display of them during his appearances and interviews, unless asked directly. He has a right to view homosexuality as sin, without being hoisted upon that petard every time he comes up for an award. We have a right to disagree with him–even vociferously so–without resorting to the childish name-calling displayed in the title chosen for the initial post of this blog.
52 A.G. Hopkins // Feb 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Just some clarifications for Elver:
Being a Christian isn’t about following the Bible, it’s about following Christ, hence the word.
Biblical literalists (who are much fewer than you might think) shouldn’t be opening their mouths about the directives god lays down, unless they’re willing to do some horrible things to their wives, sons and daughters, or to those who fail to follow those same laws. You quote from Leviticus, yet I bet you wouldn’t stone a child to death for being disobedient.
You (Elver) specifically trivialized the tribulations caused by the gay marriage situation and then dismissed comments which showed how wrong you were, claiming that your point was still valid. The fact is, legislation preventing gay marriage has already been used to legally discriminate against people in their jobs and in their daily lives. That sounds fairly extreme to me. Also, there have been over twelve hundred benefits associated with marriage. That also doesn’t sound so trivial.
The Constitution is the document which governs our rights, not the Bible. And the Constitution states that all men are created equal, and endowed with certain inalienable rights.
There is no justifiable reason which would actually stand up in a court of law for discriminating between gays and heteros when it comes to marriage laws. That’s because this is not a theocracy. We have a separation of Church and State, and the only defense for anti-gay sentiment is religious in nature, as you showed here already.
On the subject at hand; I agree that a person’s work should be the primaryevidence on which awards should be based, but an author’s opinions should also be evaluated. Few would be so arrogant as to say they can know all the differing ways that those opinions might be expressed in books. Heinlein stomped his opinions out in his books with size 12 cork boots, but not all authors are so unsubtle. (And for the record, I loved the original Ender’s Game, and most of Heinlein’s works too. Although I have to admit he’s (RAH) much harder to read since I grew up enough to realize what things he was saying.)
53 K.G. Schneider // Feb 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
A.G., thanks for a great comment. I agree on Heinlein; I adored him as a child, and it has been hard to grow up and realize some of his weaknesses as a writer.
n.b. I had a literature instructor who made the case that Hemingway approached women far more realistically than most writers. That’s a really interesting perspective. I’ve re-read some Hemingway, and for all the macho language, the women are remarkably portrayed. Re-reading one of his key works through a feminist reading lens could be an interesting idea for a book group!
54 VR Neves // Feb 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
Learning about this controversy this week is very interesting for me as a Mormon, as a middle school teacher and as an OSCard fan. I’ve read Card for a long time, and I know LDS doctrine about as well as anybody. I’m pretty sure he’s “coloring inside the lines.”
So here’s what made it interesting this week. We just had a funeral for the president of our church. Just outside the funeral, as close as was legally allowed, a group of protesters gathered to decry the deceased president as an enabler of homosexuality. We have a local satirist who wrote a column about it. Here’s a link.
http://www.sltrib.com/columnists/ci_8210106
Mormon views on homosexual attraction are more nuanced than most people who don’t know our doctrine can imagine. They are almost impossible to sum up on a blog. Here’s my best attempt: Same sex attraction is natural. There are many natural urges that we learn to control as we progress through life. The goal of life is to find joy while learning to love God and love one another.
A more complete summary can be found on the LDS web site. It’s a leaflet written to help people with same sex attraction understand what the church actually believes and teaches. Here’s a link.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=3e05c8322e1b3110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1&contentLocale=0
Based on prior conversations with active Homosexuals, I’m going to guess that a lot of socially liberal people are horrified with the views as expressed in that document. Likewise, based on conversations with practicing Christians from more conservative churches than mine, I KNOW that they consider our views to be outside the mainstream.
So, coming back to Card, my question is this “Does any of that really matter when it comes to reading his works with young adult development in mind?” I suppose it does if his books have subtle or not so subtle portrayals of homosexual characters.
I can think of two books where he describes characters with homosexual attraction - “Songmaster” and “Memory of Earth.” In both books the characters are important for other reasons. Same gender attraction is something that explains some of the pain and conflict in their lives. In both cases, the conflict isn’t between themselves and self acceptance. It’s between them and the culture in which they find themselves.
Now, I know from reading that Scott Card is a fan of Anne McCaffrey. She had a very different position on same sex attraction. I would characterize her description as celebratory and accepting. The only pain her homosexual characters feel because of their attraction and relationships are normal spousal feelings of anxiety, separation and loss. The relationship just happens to be homosexual.
I enjoy reading McCaffrey. I also enjoy reading Card. Reading both authors played an important part in the development of my character. I hate to imagine a world where everyone feels exactly the same about everything or is only allowed to express ideas that fit a socially constructed intellectual orthodoxy. (THAT, by the way, is one reason why I teach middle school and not at a college somewhere.)
Librarians would (and should) be horrified if anyone ever asks them not to celebrate McCaffrey. Card should receive the same courtesy.
55 K.G. Schneider // Feb 11, 2008 at 9:43 pm
K. Scott, the committee said they weren’t familiar with Card’s views, and I am just doing my best to ensure no one can use that excuse again.
Personally, I consider homophobia to be a form of childishness, like wanting to eat ice cream for dinner. Just because you believe in it doesn’t make it right. Card can indeed decide that homosexuality is a sin, but once he does he is reduced to a level of ridiculousness.
If he were railing against Jews or people of color, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
56 K.G. Schneider // Feb 11, 2008 at 9:46 pm
As a librarian, I don’t have to “celebrate” Card, anymore than I have to celebrate any other author in a collection. that’s not in our code of ethics. I will fight to the end to include his works in our libraries, but I don’t have to take the next step and “celebrate” him. You wanna celebrate him, knock yourself out. There are so many authors to celebrate.
57 Uncontrolled Vocabulary #28 - You prob’ly think this show is about you, don’t you? | Uncontrolled Vocabulary // Feb 24, 2008 at 8:46 pm
[...] Controversial Author Wins Edwards Award (School Library Journal) Orson Scott Card is a Big Fat Homophobe (Free Range [...]
58 Sci Fi Addict // Mar 9, 2008 at 12:13 am
It’s funny, but I had been reading Orson Scott Card’s Ender series this past few months (I just finished Xenocide), and I had no idea about his controversial views, until I heard a rant recently.
I was floored. The brilliant writing and thoughtful themes were in so incongruous with his opinions on homosexuality. I actually wrote about it on my blog as well sci fi addict.
59 Dennis Adams // Apr 3, 2008 at 2:59 pm
I am a fan of OSC’s fiction and his essays on all subjects. I consistently find them to be well-reasoned.
This thread seems to have been started with an ad hominem attack against Card, taking it for granted that the audience would find his comments to be outrageous, ignorant, hateful, etc. Most respondents do seem to find the comments to be so. But those who challenge that fact have themselves been attacked both personally and in their reasoning.
What’s lacking here is a well-reasoned defense of the assertion that Card’s views are homophobic. Doesn’t homophbia mean “fear” of homosexuals or homosexuality? I see no evidence in these quotes or anything else he has written that he is afraid. So if the acusation is not homophobia, what is it? Hatefulness, illegality, ignorance? Card believes civil rights are intrinsic and gay rights are contrived. He thinks marriage is an institution that should apply only to a man and a woman. He thinks governments should maintain some sort of laws governing some sort of homosexual behavior. It’s not at all clear to what laws he is referring and there is no citation. I think that we can all agree that these views, distilled to their essence, are not uncommon. Is it the way he expressed them that is so objectionable? Or are they objectionable simply because you disagree?
60 JC // Apr 19, 2008 at 1:08 am
at the end of the day its just a little sad to know that the author who created what could be described as the closest thing i have to a hero (in ender), in the real world believes my girlfriend and i are the equivilant of being the spawn of the devil because we love each other and should have no rights equal to that of a straight couple.
we live in a predominantly free world when it comes down to opinion, and therefor it is within cards rights to feel however he wants… its just… sad.
until i did a internet search and this all came out to me a few years back, i would have thought of card as being the most amazing human alive to create such beings of such moral fibre and understanding of the world around them. obviously i have confused fantasy with the real world… but you get that.
61 K.G. Schneider // Apr 19, 2008 at 5:30 am
JC, you may have spoken the best words on this topic.
Leave a Comment