Cracked on OSC

[Jayelle]

Orson Scott Card wants YOU

Cracked is one of my favourite websites and, well, they just wrote on OSC.


Just a warning. It's not all that complimentary towards him.

[Yebra]

Man I miss the days where I didn't know that OSC thought that people become gay because of child abuse. No. He actually thinks that.

Countless homosexuals record their "awakening" to homosexuality in the form of rape, molestation or seduction; homosexuality seems to be one of the possible responses to profound trauma or sexual misdirection at a susceptible age. Yet even the suggestion that this may be an important cause of or influence on homosexuality is shouted -- no, screamed -- down.

Why? Because within the homosexual community people know perfectly well that not everybody's introduction to homosexuality was the beautiful fulfilment of an idyllic dream. But that fact does not fit the public story that supports their political agenda. It must not be admitted.

I especially liked the bit there that any gay people who deny they were forced into it by abusers are obviously lying because they naturally can't say so publicity! It would ruin their efforts to ruin Uncle Orson's marriage! Any time you've constructed an argument that evidence to the contrary means you're right - you're doing something very very wrong.

And beyond that this amazes me:

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.

Yeah, I really wouldn't stay friends with that guy if I were one of his gay friends, which apparently some of his best friends are. Because that's not a cliche.

It's astonishing how breathtakingly stupid his core premise is: marriage is a unchanging institution needed to pin society together and any tampering might just cause the end of the world as we know it. After all, inter-racial marriage is illegal, women are still considered property and divorce is illegal. No, our concept of marriage has never changed ever.

The man is completely full of bullshit. And yes, by all accounts he's a perfectly nice guy to meet, polite and all the rest. But he's completely full of bullshit.

[starlooker]

Yeah. After reading his article (courtesy of Locke in the "Other Works" section, I was tempted to throw his books in the trash to save space during my move.

They were already packed, probably fortunately, because, after all, I like the books (mostly). I wish I didn't know about the author's opinions. I have often wished that, actually.

I kind of wanted a bit more from the "Cracked" article, but it was nice to see someone expressing the rants that I haven't bothered with, because what's the point?

It'll be interesting to see the bloody coup of outraged married people trying to rise up only to get shouted down by people like my parents, who have a very strong marriage of 33 years and see no reason that gay/lesbian people getting married would undo that.

*and stops. Just stops before entering into long rant.*

[Edamame]

I wonder how the religions of the world would react if governments (which must decide to accept this, of course) were to create their own unions for people, and the church kept their silly 'marriage' word...

Say, you can go to your government and get, oh, random word, 'coupled', whether you were gay or straight, and that would mean the combining of your land, interests, and relationship, as it were before the eyes of the law; and the churches can keep 'marriage', seeing as how not only do most of them have their requirements on the parties sex, but also on their appearances at church, money donated to church, etc.

Keep Church and State separate.

I mean, can't get mad if people are getting coupled (with all the pros and cons of marriage) and not married, right?

[wigginboy]

I wonder how the religions of the world would react if governments (which must decide to accept this, of course) were to create their own unions for people, and the church kept their silly 'marriage' word...

Say, you can go to your government and get, oh, random word, 'coupled', whether you were gay or straight, and that would mean the combining of your land, interests, and relationship, as it were before the eyes of the law; and the churches can keep 'marriage', seeing as how not only do most of them have their requirements on the parties sex, but also on their appearances at church, money donated to church, etc.

Keep Church and State separate.

I mean, can't get mad if people are getting coupled (with all the pros and cons of marriage) and not married, right?

That's all just wordplay. Marriage and coupling are the same thing in intent, just two different ways of denoting them and two different entities administering them. I do not believe the government should not have the power to grant marriage licenses. I also do not think the church has to bless a marriage. A marriage is a personal agreement between two people to stay faithful till death. The church really cannot lay any claim to that. Nor can government. You don't need a piece of paper proving you're married.

[Luet]

Man I miss the days where I didn't know that OSC thought that all gay people were gay because of child abuse. No. He actually thinks that.

Countless homosexuals record their "awakening" to homosexuality in the form of rape, molestation or seduction; homosexuality seems to be one of the possible responses to profound trauma or sexual misdirection at a susceptible age. Yet even the suggestion that this may be an important cause of or influence on homosexuality is shouted -- no, screamed -- down.

I think you misrepresented what he said. See the two sections that I bolded. He said that abuse may be ONE cause or influence of homosexuality. You claimed that he said that all gay people were that way due to being abused.

I definitely don't agree with his opinions, but I also don't think it's fair to restate them in an even more inflammatory way.

[Yebra]

The church really cannot lay any claim to that. Nor can government. You don't need a piece of paper proving you're married.

Well, you do if you want access to the host of rights that a married couple have that an unmarried couple doesn't. But sure, whatever, all those important legal and medical things are just wordplay.

Edamame I agree with you in principle (in fact that's how it's done in France), but I think it's a little optimistic that separating the components would make people happy. These are people who seem to look at their own marriages and think that it's not the love between them that's important, but having things that others don't (because nothing is special unless it's held away from others you know), so I'm not that trusting in their ability to stop making a fuss. You might even get the reaction "See you really do want to destroy marriage! The homosexual conspiracy continues!"

It strikes me that fighting gay marriage on the grounds of defending marriage is ultimately self defeating because then in the interests of fairness we create alternative institution like civil unions - which really does dilute the specialness of marriage. Marriage is an institution is stronger if we don't have to create similar institutions because of bigotry. But if they were thinking clearly enough to get that we wouldn't be in this situation to start with.

[Yebra]

I think you misrepresented what he said. See the two sections that I bolded. He said that abuse may be ONE cause or influence of homosexuality. You claimed that he said that all gay people were that way due to being abused.

I definitely don't agree with his opinions, but I also don't think it's fair to restate them in an even more inflammatory way.

Yes, I'll agree with that. Original post rephrased.

Edit: To avoid triple posting and being a worse person than going back in time to edit stupid comments already makes me, Starlooker have a look here if you want a more in depth rant, which coincidently I read earlier today before Jayelle posted the Cracked one here. Weiirrd.

[Eddie Pinz]

This article upset me until I saw what Yebra said. Card has homosexual friends. How can he be homophobic is if has homosexual friends??? That's always a winner when being accused of being racist/bigot. "What homophobic?? That's crazy. I have plenty of homosexual friends." That's a win for Card.

[Oliver Dale]

I find myself shrugging. He is a member of what I perceive to be a quickly shrinking minority. In time, these inflammatory opinions will be washed away by the tide of rationality and relevancy.

Actually, I'm only commenting to state that I found one part of that feminist SF essay to be eerie:

I find it odd that Card brought up Tearoom Trade at all, actually. Hooker’s research is famous and frequently referenced: Humphrey’s research is not. Where did Card hear of Tearoom Trade? Why did he read it? Why is Laud Humphreys’s conviction that sex between men is normal the key fact that stuck in Card’s mind about this work, rather than any of the very relevant data about men who have sex with men but who don’t self-identify as gay/bi and who are often married, with children, leading lives of heterosexual respectability?

Because I have long wondered something very similar! I'm obviously not suggesting anything, but I was glad to see I'm not the only one who wondered.....

[LilBee91]

And then he said this in his rant about Mamma Mia (spoilers for that, I guess):

Except for the appalling moment when Colin Firth's character suddenly reveals himself to be gay. No, it's not because I'm anti-gay. It's because they trivialize and ridicule him and homosexuality. His developing relationship with a gay Greek man is never shown or hinted at -- it is revealed only as a punch line. As a joke. It's a slap in the face to all gay people.

Everybody else's yearnings, everybody else's personal agonies, everybody else's love story is worth at least a few moments of screen time. But homosexuality exists in this movie only to be laughed at. It's as if they're saying that the feelings of gay people are amusing, whereas the feelings of heterosexuals are important and deep and meaningful.

Frankly, I don't know what to think of the man. Happily, the doings of authors really don't change my opinions of their works. I'll agree with OSC that courts do not have to right to legislate (if that's what he was getting at), but I also don't think the state should have the right to deny any consenting pair a marriage license. Of course, I also want to live in a perfect world where we don't need a ruling authority telling people not to steal or murder, which won't be happening any time soon.

[Ela]

I find OSC's views on gay marriage, as well as some of his political views, appalling.

I still like his older books and don't plan to throw them out or stop reading them. Some of his recent stuff doesn't do much for me, frankly.

[locke]

Because I have long wondered something very similar! I'm obviously not suggesting anything, but I was glad to see I'm not the only one who wondered.....

me too. especially due to the gay character's he's so 'respectfully' treated that they get married have children and lecture unmarried characters about the glories of heterosexual marraige even if heterosexual sex isn't their natural inclination. Well, actually Anton is the only one to lecture other charactes, but there was the character in Homecoming who was obligated/compelled/forced into marraige/procreation for the good of the species. such a burden!

This thread may or may not be moved and merged. I had initially intended to keep this topic tidily contained to one thread, but since there hasn't been the reaction here there was/is at hatrack and other scifi forums I visit, I don't think those strictures are necessary anymore.

[zeroguy]

How can he be homophobic is if has homosexual friends??? That's always a winner when being accused of being racist/bigot. "What homophobic?? That's crazy. I have plenty of homosexual friends." That's a win for Card.

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is usually what I hear about this; usually in response to his positive portrayal of homosexual characters in his novels, though.

[Edamame]

Personally, I think OSC is a bit confused as to how to integrate how he feels personally because of what he knows of human nature and life, and what he has been taught by his church.

After all, he doesn't have much problem with interracial relationships in his books, yet the Church of LDS is pretty straightforward, not in doctrine but in practice, about not mixing races. The same goes for marrying outside their church.

As for same-sex marriages, they were perfectly acceptable in Rome until the 4th century, when Constantine brought with him all Christianity had to preach. Also, at this time and before, marriage was a completely verbal institution; "I marry you" was simply good enough.

Now, there ARE some, and by some I mean very FEW, branches of Christianity and Judaism that are accepting of same-sex marriages within their church. But they are not recognized by the State. Now, the government has no right to tell us who we live with, at least not in most civilized countries, and there is no need to see who we decide to make love to. Additionally, they don't have any problem with us bequeathing all our belongings to family or any sex lover upon our death, but it is unacceptable for two people of the same sex to share responsibilities or what have you in the eyes of the 'law' as a unified couple. Kind of oppressive, I think.

Regardless, heterosexual marriage came about as a way of ENSURING generations to come to worship in the same religion as their parents so the religion did not die out.

Now, please note, I am not atheist, I am an extremely spiritual person, but do not follow any organized religion. I was raised Catholic, but have studied Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and even Pagan beliefs, and have settled upon my own understanding of the way of the world. I do, though, believe religion to be a very important aspect of culture, history, and anthropology, even if I happen to think many religions are flawed and/or corrupted.

So. Since homosexual partnerships have a difficult time having babies, that's the end of the line there. But heterosexual relationships can have babies and teach them in the way of their beliefs and almost guarantee a prospering religion or government faction or ethnicity, I mean, really whatever. Throw in a few wars and some more oppressive forces, maybe even a little pride in the belief system, and then you have a group of people all believing the same thing, fighting the same cause, and sticking to the group, having babies with people within the group to continue the group. It's actually kinda ethnic cleansing in and of itself.

Maybe that's why Iran has no homosexuals!

I feel maybe I jumped around in subject too much and have managed to confuse even myself as to the original reason of my rant. Please, let me know if there is an error in my judgment or my wording that makes my views hard to understand or my language difficult to follow.

I just feel bad for Card. I don't believe him to be homophobic, and I do think he is accepting of the lifestyle, but I don't see his war on gay marriage as a personal choice, rather something pushed into him from his religious ideals. (Marriage is between a man and women so they procreate, and have children that will follow suit.)

[daPyr0x]

I'm curious how you can say something like

As for same-sex marriages, they were perfectly acceptable in Rome until the 4th century, when Constantine brought with him all Christianity had to preach. Also, at this time and before, marriage was a completely verbal institution; "I marry you" was simply good enough.

and then follow it up with

Regardless, heterosexual marriage came about as a way of ENSURING generations to come to worship in the same religion as their parents so the religion did not die out.

Seems kind-of backwards to me.

Now, if you're going to jump on the "Bible was created by man" (as opposed to the more common "devine word") theology, the logic there does make some sense, as you clarify to be speaking only of heterosexual marriage and the reasons it is 'forced'.

However, if you are to go to the "devine word" theology, whereas the Bible is "how human beings are to be to please their creator," then there is no relevance to saying we created marriage for any reason other than it being spoken of and taught in the Bible.

So. Since homosexual partnerships have a difficult time having babies, that's the end of the line there. But heterosexual relationships can have babies and teach them in the way of their beliefs and almost guarantee a prospering religion or government faction or ethnicity, I mean, really whatever. Throw in a few wars and some more oppressive forces, maybe even a little pride in the belief system, and then you have a group of people all believing the same thing, fighting the same cause, and sticking to the group, having babies with people within the group to continue the group. It's actually kinda ethnic cleansing in and of itself.

Maybe that's why Iran has no homosexuals!

So you're saying that straight parents, given that their children would be raised 'straight', would not have gay children? Iran has no homosexuals because they would be stoned (and not in the good way) to even infer such attraction.

Personally, I think OSC is a bit confused as to how to integrate how he feels personally because of what he knows of human nature and life, and what he has been taught by his church.

I do agree with you there, as he does contradict himself in some ways. I mean, to me, that means I'm in the wrong church....but hey, that's just me.

Marriage is a bond, a commitment, between two people. It doesn't need to be "recognized" by anyone else to be there. Personally, I think it's a natural thing that's part of how we, as a species, are - regardless of church or state - in the same way that wolves pick one mate and stay with them to raise offspring etc. Why is the church even involved? Well, regardless of how you believe the Bible came about, it was part of the doctrine - so the church became involved in recognizing marriage. Why is the state involved? Mostly taxes. At the end of the day, it all comes down to taxes, census, and the like. There's no really good reason (imo) that the state really has to be involved in the least - much less decide who you can or can't marry.

Look, you don't want the church to accept gay marriage? That's fine. I can deal with that. Regardless of any other hypocrisy that may be evident in your sect, we're going to stick to our guns about men not lying with other men. You don't want the state to accept gay marriage? Why the f*** not? Does it really bother you that much if two women are married? They're going to live together whether you like it or not. They do have ways they can get themselves a baby whether you like it or not (despite being unable to legally adopt through the system). What's the big deal? Let them be happy, will you?

[LilBee91]

"Hate the sin, love the sinner" is usually what I hear about this; usually in response to his positive portrayal of homosexual characters in his novels, though.

I could be completely wrong, but I think his main issue is with same-sex marriage, not homosexuality. Probably a terrible analogy, it's kind of like having a friend that isn't the brightest crayon in the box--great person, you love him to death, but he just isn't going to do well at Harvard. The way I understand OSC's views is that homosexuals are great people and deserve to be treated kindly and respectfully, they just don't make the requirements for the grand institution of marriage.

After all, he doesn't have much problem with interracial relationships in his books, yet the Church of LDS is pretty straightforward, not in doctrine but in practice, about not mixing races. The same goes for marrying outside their church.

While marrying outside the church is discouraged, I know many mixed-race LDS couples that aren't looked down on at all. But I guess the fact that the LDS church (in the US at least) isn't that racially diverse makes the number of interracial couples kind of low.

But heterosexual relationships can have babies and teach them in the way of their beliefs and almost guarantee a prospering religion or government faction or ethnicity, I mean, really whatever. Throw in a few wars and some more oppressive forces, maybe even a little pride in the belief system, and then you have a group of people all believing the same thing, fighting the same cause, and sticking to the group, having babies with people within the group to continue the group. It's actually kinda ethnic cleansing in and of itself.

I think that is the point of promoting traditional heterosexual marriage: it strengthens civilization and the organizations that have led to the current level of prosperity. While this could be viewed as a cleansing of sorts, so is survival of the fittest. I'm not saying it is right to deny marriage to homosexual couples, but heterosexual pairs are a lot more useful in the coninuation of the species. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it doesn't seem completely evil to me for people to want to strengthen the civilizations they love. And since marriage is a fundamental part of their civilized world, any corruption of that institution will degrade the society as a whole. Of course, those same type of people viewed interracial marriage as a major corruption, so they are obviously anti-progress bigots whose opinions on anything don't matter. [/slight sarcasm]

Really though, I think I have to agree with daPyr0x--churches can go ahead and deny gay marriage if they want. If the state wants to accept it, it doesn't (or shouldn't) bother you. Allowing two men or two women to get married doesn't violate any fundamental rights of other people, which is (in my view) the only thing government is around to protect. Morality, beyond outlawing those things that rob people of their life, liberty, and property, is not the business of government--at least not on a federal level; I suppose single communities might be able to have stricter laws since they are easier to leave. Religious institutions can impose whatever rules they which over the people who choose to follow them, and have every right to share their messages of morality. Of course, if society crumbles due to sin and corruption, it will probably be the fault of people like me--those with morals who won't try to force them on other people, and instead hope they'll find their own personal motiviations to be good.

[Yebra]

I think that is the point of promoting traditional heterosexual marriage: it strengthens civilization and the organizations that have led to the current level of prosperity. While this could be viewed as a cleansing of sorts, so is survival of the fittest. I'm not saying it is right to deny marriage to homosexual couples, but heterosexual pairs are a lot more useful in the coninuation of the species. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it doesn't seem completely evil to me for people to want to strengthen the civilizations they love. And since marriage is a fundamental part of their civilized world, any corruption of that institution will degrade the society as a whole. Of course, those same type of people viewed interracial marriage as a major corruption, so they are obviously anti-progress bigots whose opinions on anything don't matter. [/slight sarcasm]

I think people who really cared about preserving their civilization would have better arguments that haven't been proven wrong before and recognize that previous changes in the concept of marriage have without a doubt made society stronger. It's a bad sign when the same argument that society as we know it will crumble was exactly the kind used to oppose interracial marriage laws. But this is naturally completely different!

I know you're just putting the argument out there and don't necessarily agree with it, but bollocks to the notion that gay marriage wouldn't make society stronger. There are a lot of children out there who aren't going to be adopted and there are a lot of gay couples out there who are committed to each other and WANT to raise children. Accepting gay marriage on the same grounds that we accept two infertile people can be married and can raise children not their own seems a no-brainer that fits more children into those two parent households we're told are the best. Any society who arbitrarily decides that some among it's number are unfit to raise children despite no evidence to that effect can't be considered a healthy one.

[locke]

Regardless, heterosexual marriage came about as a way of ENSURING generations to come to worship in the same religion as their parents so the religion did not die out.

Perhaps, there's another argument that marraige is primarily about property, specifically about enforcing patriarchies and control over women/issue. I believe the argument goes that with the revloutionary invention of "wealth" man wants to leave property to his children when he dies. So he must know that his children are his own. the only way for a man to know that his children are his own is if he is absolutely certain that he is the only one who has sex with his woman (pre property, the argument is that most societies default to matriarchies because you always know who your mother is, but you can never ensure who your father is, therefore all inheritance and geneology would be based on the mother, property is the factor that fundamentally reversed this). Marraige then develops as a contract as a way to resolve the delimma of fatherhood. As property and wealth become more ensconced, women become more like property until you reach the point where their choice is immaterial, they are simply a valuable asset for their fathers to sell to another man so that man may ensure his children are his own (where do you think the tradition of the father handing off the bride to husband comes from?)

This is also actually related to why christianity was so revolutionary, and why the romans attempted to oppress it so vigorously. Christianity was the only opposition to the treatment of women as property in this manner, in fact christianity was the only way women were allowed any rights or self determination. Fathers throughout the empire saw this as a dangerous encroachment upon their rights, properties and assets when their daughters would run away to join a christian sect/commune. many women would join the church as ascetics as early christianity discouraged marraige between men and women, something to be done only as a last resort if men and women couldn't control their lusts. All this reversed course after christianity became the official state religion of the Empire. And another major change came when Augustine converted and wrote his book, his reinterpretation of scripture as a consistently anti-sex tract (due to his own libidinous history and perversions pre conversion) has held steady in the forms of christianity that count Augustine's interpretations as part of their theological heritage.

[Edamame]

Ah, yes, property...

But if that were the only case, property can be male or female, so why make it be the female?

And yes, there were plenty of men who lived their golden years as someone's sex slave, and they were property, but prior to the spread of Christianity they could use the word marriage, if they wanted to, but only afterwards was marriage deemed a man/woman thing.

Why would women become the property and not just anybody the person seeking ownership chose?

And just in case, that might come off as snobby sounding, but I don't mean it, I think they are legitimate questions.

[locke]

ugh, it's been a while since college, but I believe the explanation to the 'why women' question was that as civilization and wealth developed it was more likely to be the labor of men (rather than women) that would result in the accumulation of wealth. so man would want to preserve the fruits of his labor.

frankly this explanation never seemed adequete to me, but the text we were using, Engels on the Origins of the Family was 100 years old, and deeply flawed in my opinion. both in its tendancy towards totalizing statements, blinded to the bias that it assumed of course men would be the beneficiaries because men are naturally superior and due to the fact that it based most of its conclusions from studying European/middle eastern cultures and extrapolating how they developed from isolated polyandrous polynesian cultures but completely ignored much older traditions, such as those of china and japan (not to mention africa and north america) that often had histories that contradicted Engels' conclusions.

[neo-dragon]

Sometimes I wonder what OSC's legacy will be after he dies. I happened to look up Ender in Exile on amazon and I couldn't believe that customers have tagged it with the words "homophobe", "homophobia", "zealot", and "bigot". Is that really called for? Is this really what OSC is known for these days?

[Edamame]

I sent Amazon a nice little message asking them to please remove those tags.

"This product, and all if not the majority of Orson Scott Card's books have been tagged with words such as "Homophobe, homophobic, zealot, bigot, Mormon." I have read a majority of Orson Scott Card's books, am not a Mormon, homophobic, or a zealot, and know for a fact that these books do NOT give any sort of message to promote these beliefs. I do understand that Mr. Card is of the Mormon (Church of Latter Day Saints) faith, but seeing as his books do not touch upon his faith, rather they show how humanity with all of its different faiths and cultures can respect each other, I do not see how this tag is in any way appropriate for his products. Also, his books do not promote any ill-feeling towards homosexuality, instead they often have characters that are homosexual and are depicted with respect. I believe that these tags, made by people who do not truly understand the author, or read Mr. Card's work, should be removed in order to give his books ability to stand on their own reputation and substance. "

[neo-dragon]

Good for you, Edamame. I should have gone ahead and done that myself.

[locke]

Is that really called for? Is this really what OSC is known for these days?

In the SF community? Yes.

The internet review of science fiction doesn't even acknowledge IGMS exists.

He writes an Obit of Solzhenitsyn in his latest world watch column (apparently the one intellectual or literary writer who is not evil incarnate for the crime of being intellectual or a literary writer like all others belonging to those sinful castes of nefarious evil doers). The basis for Olzhenitsyn not being evil incarnate like every other intellectual ever is this speech at Harvard. But you know, if you actually read it, it's just as damning of enthusiastic war mongering as it is of liberals who cling to an idealized socialism/communism despite the evidence of its failures. Not exactly a piece that really supports OSC's position as strongly as he thinks it does. unless you read it through a rush limbaugh perspective of willful confirmation bias. Solzhenitsyn cries out for a true statesmen and a public willing to sacrifice and get involved. You know, what Obama is doing for this country. He damns the sort of buisness as usual politics like McCain. And OSC spins Solzhenitsyn into anti Obama smear that is pro McCain

But the point where I gave up on OSC completely was when he said:

You know what I think is going on...
Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she’s flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special “children’s book” list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.

It makes her insane. The money wasn’t enough. She wants to be treated with respect.

Which, since I've never once heard Rowling say anything about literary respectibility but I've often heard Card howl about the evilness of the gatekeepers of said respectibility leads me to a quite different conclusion then the one Card intended in that column. Hell, Pweb had material very similar to the HPLexicon and I still think Rowling was in the right. OSC would have sued the pants off us if we'd tried to publish an ender encyclopedia as detailed as the lexicon.

[Jayelle]

Wow. Just wow.
Nothing to go on? Well, maybe Rowling has nowhere to go now that HP is over, but at least she bloody ENDED it. Card has no right to say all that crap while his writing continues to go downhill. Talk about flailing, he's wrote what we passed off as an April Fool's joke four years ago.
Ender's Puppy wouldn't shock me now.

[Ela]

OSC certainly is milking the Ender cash cow for all it's worth. That said, some of the IGMS Enderverse stories were interesting. Then again, I've always thought that Card was much better at short stories than at novels.

[Oliver Dale]

Is that really called for? Is this really what OSC is known for these days?

In the SF community? Yes.

The internet review of science fiction doesn't even acknowledge IGMS exists.

You're right that a large portion of the SF community is aware of Card's politics, and that many hold his politics against his fiction. And this may be the reason that IRoSF doesn't review IGMS, though I didn't know that they didn't. Actually, the fact that they don't is pretty laughable. I mean, oooooh, what a big bad statement. IGMS is obscure enough with just a few thousand readers, but IRoSF is obscure even as far as obscurity goes. I'd be willing to bet a majority of the people here have never even heard of it, and we are all (arguably, perhaps) members of the 'SF community.' I mean, I've never even bothered to sign up and I suspect I, as a writer of speculative fiction, am a member of their prime target audience. In a phrase: what's the point? All of this talk is pretty useless.

People will keep buying his books, no matter what he writes in a political column. And people will keep buying his books, no matter what anyone writes about those columns. The only thing that will truly impact his sell-through numbers is if his readers come away displeased with the product they buy.

[locke]

good point, Ollie, on IRoSF, I was feeling kinda petulant and I'd just discovered that site that day.

I don't think any IGMS stories have gotten a hugo nom yet.
http://www.denvention.org/hugos/Final-Report.pdf
that shows the vote totals, seems like getting twenty noms for a short story would be doable at least. but I doubt IGMS' readership really has any crossover with those scifi fans who attend worldcon so it doesn't indicate much. I don't think there's been much attention from the Nebulas either, but those are a bit snobbier in terms of being in the clique as well.

but Card does still sell. still it will be interesting to see how well Ender in Flight does with all the uproar that's happened lately.

[Oliver Dale]

That's my point: I suspect the sales of EiE will be completely independent of any "uproar" that may have happened on the blogosphere. Even if every single member of SFWA refused to buy his book (and this is assuming they would each have purchased a copy otherwise), I doubt it would even represent a 1% dip in sales figures. Nothing. Statistical noise.

As for the Hugo awards, well, there is a big long rant about them that's just bubbling out of me. But let's summarize by saying: the plight of the Hugo awards is that they aren't really about any particular work (in general), but rather about how much fans like the author in question. If you look at that list, almost every single one of those short story authors are names in the field, who, consequently (or subsequently?), attend many conventions (i.e. networking). I bet the IGMS readership DOES overlap, in that authors who attend major conventions would certainly be interested in IGMS as a potential market since it is a professional-qualifying magazine that pays professional rates.

[locke]

oh if you read the "I hope I didn't just give away the ending" blog i linked up thread, the author really has a lot of fun rants about the hugos. I don't take the awards very seriously anymore. The hugos need to set up a voting-only membership so those invested in the process, but unable to make the trip to worldcon can still participate. There's a lot of things that need to be reformed with worldcon.

still if Seattle gets the bid I'll probably go to that one. I'm still a bit annoyed at having to miss LACon but I was interning on 24 at the time and had no paying job and no money. and it wasn't in LA it was in Anaheim, which was a long ass drive.

[Oliver Dale]

Not to derail too much, but awesome! Be sure to let me know, but I very well might be going myself.