Critics, community and 'Ender's Game': An interview with Orson Scott Card


Return To Article
  • Zann Zibar New Zealand, 00
    Oct. 8, 2016 5:01 p.m.

    Card is a fascinating person with great insights.
    His stance on homosexuality is hypocritical and those quotes (posted here) are disappointing.
    What's written in this interview makes sense to me. I deplore Political Correctness and equate it with an inability to think critically. The Internet has given rise to legions of Intolerant who bully and ostracise (eg. Feminism being the most vocal, feminism means woman as much as ku Klux Klan means white). So Card can be criticised for extreme prejudice toward homosexuals.
    People need to put effort into condemning all prejudice. When you hear "reverse discrimination", say "hypocrite". "violence against women", say "sexist". "we need 50% of" say "bulldust". "black lives matter", say "racist. Everybody's lives matter". Look past trivialities (eg genitals).
    Without special need (disabled, elderly, pregnant), no special treatment should be given (eg. No jobs based on gender, especially quota filling). Sites that promote prejudice (eg. The Verge) should be labelled as "prejudiced and not suitable for children" using WOT.

  • MJ Annie LAYTON, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 4:46 p.m.

    He uses these words to describe others: repressive, punishing, self-contradictory, asinine, irrelevant, silly, idiotic, boneheads, intolerant, arch-fanatical puritans, extreme, hate-filled, polarizing, babbling, annoying, foolish.

    He uses these words to describe himself: positive, honest, in control, self-contained, thinking, communitarian.

    Hmm, I wonder how he can describe himself in those terms when he demonizes large groups of people he doesn’t know.

  • Mom of 8 Hyrum, UT
    Nov. 1, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    The more I read about Orson Scott Card, the more impressed I am with him. As an aspiring writer, I'm bookmarking this article for future reference.

    His dedication and drive to perfecting his craft is inspiring and motivating.

  • Contrariusest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 1, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    @Palad --

    "1. The right to insurrection is claimed for the people in the US Declaration of Independence."

    Suuuuure. That's why all those Confederate States were allowed to peaceably secede from the Union without armed conflict -- right?


    "2. When a government or society tries to teach our children that immorality and sin are normal..."

    "immorality and sin" according to who? Sorry, Pafad, but this isn't a theocracy. Your personal view on morality doesn't get to win over everyone else's.

    "3. It's called hypocrisy - claiming to believe one thing while living another."

    What hypocrisy? Gay people claim to believe in equal rights for all citizens. There is no hypocrisy there.

    "4. Alcoholics would be second-class citizens according to your reasoning"

    Why? Alcoholics have the same rights as anyone else does. Oh, except for gay people -- who are still denied the right to marry.

    "5. Agreed, just as laws against other undesirable behaviors should."

    So, according to you, there ought to be laws against overeating? Laws against smoking? Laws against watching too much TV?

    In this country we restrict rights and privileges when actions convey a significant risk of harming other people. But gay marriage doesn't harm anyone.

  • Palad Near KC, MO
    Nov. 1, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    1. The right to insurrection is claimed for the people in the US Declaration of Independence. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
    2. When a government or society tries to teach our children that immorality and sin are normal, they threaten the integrity and sovereignty of our families.
    3. It's called hypocrisy - claiming to believe one thing while living another.
    4. Alcoholics would be second-class citizens according to your reasoning, and there is more scientific evidence for a genetic link to alcoholism than there is to homosexuality. All laws restrict behavior of some sort, especially when that behavior poses a risk to a portion or the whole of a society, or has the potential to do so. The disruption of the family unit, from any source, is a seditious threat to any society, and must be treated as such.
    5. Agreed, just as laws against other undesirable behaviors should.

  • Contrariusiest mid-state, TN
    Nov. 1, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    " They’re repressive, punishing, intolerant of the slightest variation.... "

    This, from a man who has spent years being intolerant of gay people and actively trying to repress their civil rights??

    Here's a few statements from Card --

    1. Gay marriage and the Federal government: "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..."
    -- He didn't say "vote the bums out of office" or "we'll get em at the next election" -- He said "DESTROY" that government "AND BRING IT DOWN".
    -- That's insurrection, folks.

    2. Married gay people: "They steal from me what I treasure most".
    -- How do gay people steal anything?

    3. Gay people in church: "They are wolves in sheep's clothing, preaching meekness while attempting to devour the flock."
    -- Seriously?

    4. Gay people as citizens: "those who flagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society."
    -- Yup, second class citizenship for gays.

    5. Gay people and the law: "Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books..."

    Yet Card feels entitled to complain about intolerance or repression??

  • RockOn Spanish Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2013 11:07 p.m.

    His best book is "Speaker for the Dead." IMHO. OSC is an excellent writer. Glad he is open to discussing his thoughts. Highly skilled. Let him speak.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 31, 2013 10:48 a.m.

    "And as my politics diverged from the political correctness that has captured the left — I mean, (in) 1976 I was a Daniel Patrick Moynihan liberal Democrat — and without changing any of my principles, I’ve now become quite a right-winger in the eyes of the left. And I’m a little baffled by it because I’m a liberal and they’re not. They’re repressive, punishing, intolerant of the slightest variation, absolutely the opposite of what it means to be a liberal. But that’s the way it goes. They still get the label. I am the fact of what it meant to be a liberal. I find the most liberals who feel like I do among people who are labeled as conservatives. It’s a very odd thing."

    Geez, I thought I was only one, the last of my tribe! And here is another. We need to take our title back!