Separating Art from the Artist

[gremcint]

I'll just start with what brings this up rather than a general discussion about it and we'll go from there. A couple years ago I read ender's game and loved it, loved the characters, loved the setting, loved the strategy of the game. Now in the past I had hear about the opinion's of Orson Scott Card about homosexuality but forgot who had said that stuff and didn't put the dots together until after I had read the book. Now I vehemently disagree with his opinion, and further this isn't a case of someone said something stupid and repented later he still holds those opinions and actively pursues their end.

The book however that I recall does not comment on homosexuality at all either way, so the message of the book is not about his beliefs here.

Ender's game is being made into a movie. I would like to see this movie, however seeing this movie means supporting the author, not morally but financially and giving him more notoriety (I'm surprised I spelled that right on the first try), I realize I'm only one person and it's a grain of sand metaphorically speaking. But at what point do I say no, the movie may be awesome but the author is a terrible person and I refuse to support him.

Further I don't know why in this case I'm making abig deal out of it, I mean I recently bought The Dark Knight Returns on DVD and Frank Miller is a racist sexist asshole.

Boiling it down, is it ok to like the art and ignore who the artist is, especially when the art itself doesn't have a negative message.

[Nekojin]

I'd say that's a highly individual answer, and it's not going to be the right thing for everyone. But if the author's actual opinions are coming through in the piece (as in the Frank Miller question - he really is racist and sexist, and writes 99% of his female characters to either be whores or warriors, or both), I see nothing wrong with boycotting their works.

When you're boycotting them over their general attitude (Card, et al), and not for what's in the book itself, that's a much stickier issue. Rent it on RedBox, so he's getting a few pennies, if that?

[Kheldarson]

Personally, having read most of his books, including his more religiously focused ones (I'm really impressed by his Women of the Bible), his personal opinion on that particular subject never comes up in his novels.

He just doesn't write about it.

So my take on it is, basically, beyond writing/saying his opinion, does he do anything to really try to enforce his beliefs? Further, honestly, how much in royalties is he going to get for this movie (probably not much)?

And...I'll be honest, even though it looks like they're making it a basic space epic, I still really want to see Ender's Game. It's a good story.

[gremcint]

So my take on it is, basically, beyond writing/saying his opinion, does he do anything to really try to enforce his beliefs? Further, honestly, how much in royalties is he going to get for this movie (probably not much)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_s...#Homosexuality

In 2008, Card wrote that "[t]here is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage," and indicated that a revolution would be appropriate if gay marriage became law. He said:

Because when government is the enemy of marriage, then the people who are actually creating successful marriages have no choice but to change governments, by whatever means is made possible or necessary. . . .

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.
In 2009, Card became a member of the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage, a group that seeks to preserve traditional marriage.

[Kheldarson]

Still doesn't answer how much of the money from this movie he'll actually see in order to change it into furthering this cause. If he does at all.

Cuz what I think is really ironic is the fact that Ender's Game and the rest of the series is probably one of the best books on tolerance out there.

Again, I'll still go see it. I like the book. I like the message of the series and the way he wrote it. Do I like his politics? Nah, but they don't affect his stories at all.

Also, I didn't even hear about his opinion on this until it became a big deal with the movie deal being announced. Kinda says something.

[Nyoibo]

With hollywood accounting, hell it could make a billion dollars and still not make a profit.

I just had a similar discussion about a birthday present, I got a Jayne hat, now I love the character of Jayne but I don't agree with Adam Baldwins politics at all.

[Racket_Man]

Have you read Speaker for the Dead?????

part of the sub-plot is regilious intolerance of the colonists and their objection (almost to violence) to the "Speaker For The Dead" crowd (which is not really a religion in the traditional sense). Then add in all of the "relationship" twists he throws in during the book. Then throw in the piggies and the plague

Since I found out they were making a major motion picture of Enders Game I have picked up several of the books including the prequels.

I could care less what a writer/author/storytellers policitical or religious views are. I want a good consistant story with good characters, enough detail for me to filling the blanks with my imagination, and something to keep me guessing until the writer revels all the points.

[Kheldarson]

Yeah, I've read the whole quartet. And given the end, I still stand by my statement.

The series is a lesson in what intolerance does and therefore is still the best argument for tolerance.

Course, that's not taking into account the Shadow series which has a different point entirely.

[HYHYBT]

I want a good consistant story with good characters, enough detail for me to filling the blanks with my imagination, and something to keep me guessing until the writer revels all the points.

And that they *do* fill in all the points eventually.

[AccountingDrone]

There are an assload of artists past and present that have objectionable opinions and deeds. If you were to eliminate artists with objectionable personal beliefs, you would have to eliminate most all of the historical artists including Shakespeare, Rembrandt, Van Gogh, and pretty much any movie written and filmed between 1900 and 1980. Hell, I would have to add City on the Edge of Tomorrow episode of ST:TOS, having had a con runin with Harlan Ellison like many other females [and he is but 1 of a number of 'bad boy' SF/fantasy authors one runs into at cons.]

People are people, and are entitled to their own opinions. If those opinions slip into their works, then I have to judge the works to see if I will read or watch them. If it involves someone historically, I have to adjust my expectations to allow for the mores of the time. I would not expect someone in 1400s Europe to heartily embrace modern feminist dogma ... I personally have no issue with Mohammad having married Aicha at 9 years old, it happened back then and there is no benefit to getting my panties in a twist about it now.

[anakhouri]

My husband and I recently had this discussion, concerning Card being kicked off of "Superman".

There are many authors I enjoy who I don't necessarily agree with in some aspects (my favorite author ever, Ray Bradbury, was of a completely different political persuasion than myself, especially near the end of his life) but as long as they don't use their work to further an agenda that is contrary to my own ideas, I don't mind.

Personally I am not a fan of Card (I dislike his writing style). I supose it's ironic that Superman, an icon of acceptance and hope, would be written by someone who publically speaks out against gay people, and maybe that's the real problem people had with the situation. If he was chosen to write another comic character, there may not have been such an outcry.