Can you guess who said these things?

His take on gays in the quote is interesting considering that in RL, he is/was known for his anti-gay bias. I would expect nothing less than an anti-gay bias from a devout Mormon, however.

Still, it might be interesting to talk with him at length and get his actual, off the record views on some subjects. I wonder how he would enjoy dinner with me and my girlfriend? :lol:
 
not in a million years... But having read the quotes I'd like to see what he said to get him a bad reputation

WRT what Mormons believe...All I can do is quote South Park... dumdedumdum :)

No offense Mormons, Stan got his in the end
 
Was there a series of books? I read the first one a decade ago (so memory is hazy) and it didn't portray the descent into dictatorship as 'difficult but necessary' that I recall. Maybe that was in the sequels? Or maybe my memory is faulty.

I do remember being really disappointed with the book.

Torrent, the guy who "remained the source of principles and resolute calm control" and ended up the dictator, number one, orchestrated the decapitation plot that created the crisis in the first place, and number two, presented numerous convincing arguments to other characters regarding why the US needed a "firm consistent hand" (ie, his) in order to get through it. Some people might have leapt to the comfort of believing it was a "cautionary tale," but the use of dialog in that way was reminiscent of Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead.

And, yeah, the book, as a book, sucked, much like Rand's work. As an indoctrination document featuring speeches embedded as dialog and a tailor made situation for appealing in the best possible light it was pretty good, and made the safe security of a benevolent dictatorship seem pretty attractive.
 
/'note to myself. When I have become a rich and famous author, keep on letting the characters do the talking.
You know that is one of the many many nice things writing fiction entails. You can be a real manipulative female doag about making your points while never being open for attack. Muahahahahahahaha
Of course it would be bad fiction if you ever saw through it. Maybe that is one of the hallmarks of a good author. It is impossible to attack him because it is impossible to know what he really thinks (other than not wanting to kill all the Jews and other usual stuff)
 
Nice edit.

Yes, I see. Now let's look at why no one does, or should, take your claim seriously.

You have no established pattern of behavior to support it. To the best of my knowledge you have never met me, nor claimed to have met me. Nor have you, again to the best of my knowledge, given any indication that your personal history has any intersection with Hugo Chavez that would allow you insights into his actions or motivations. I, on the other hand, can say 'there was this internet forum' and hardly anyone would bat an eye. My established pattern of behavior fits the claim. I can say I engaged in heated discussions on said forum, and again be met with a basic shrug and a "well, yeah, of course you did."

Dude, you have to be projecting when you accuse *me* of not reading what I quote. I never claimed that you made up your presence on the Hatrack forums! I am accusing you of twisting around OSC's words to seem far worse than they are!

And I can say "this is my observations from the time, and no, I have no interest in tracking back over the literally hundreds of thousands of interactions I have had on the internet to find this one" and again it fits in my established pattern of behavior, because I have always snubbed pompous demands of that nature.

What do you think it says about you that being asked to actually cite the person you accuse of being genocidal is perceived by you as pompous?

Since apparently following the quoted text is too complex for you, that was a response to LC, who used the phrase "be unable to produce it." Of course, since you failed to recognize the context you couldn't make sense of the argument.

He said pretty much the same thing I did: that not producing a source for your claim was bad form. It's hardly relevant whether you can't or won't produce it.

killed me

I think I actually went by Listerine on one or two places on the internet. Can't remember where though. :mischief:

Torrent, the guy who "remained the source of principles and resolute calm control" and ended up the dictator, number one, orchestrated the decapitation plot that created the crisis in the first place, and number two, presented numerous convincing arguments to other characters regarding why the US needed a "firm consistent hand" (ie, his) in order to get through it. Some people might have leapt to the comfort of believing it was a "cautionary tale," but the use of dialog in that way was reminiscent of Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead.

And, yeah, the book, as a book, sucked, much like Rand's work. As an indoctrination document featuring speeches embedded as dialog and a tailor made situation for appealing in the best possible light it was pretty good, and made the safe security of a benevolent dictatorship seem pretty attractive.

Orson Scott Card is not Ayn Rand. They're not similar writers, even. He doesn't give his protagonists long diatribes to justify their actions or to explain how society should be organized - it's the villains who do that.

Here's a notable example:

Spoiler Spoilers for Ender's Shadow :
Achilles almost laughed out loud. But it was important for Bean to think that he had won. As, for the moment, he had. Achilles could see now that there was no way for him to remain in Battle School. But Bean wasn't smart enough just to kill him and have done. No, Bean was, completely unnecessarily, allowing him to live. And as long as Achilles was alive, then time would move things his way. The universe would bend until the door was opened and Achilles went free. And it would happen sooner rather than later.

You shouldn't have left a door open for me, Bean. Because I will kill you someday. You and everyone else who has seen me helpless here.

"All right," said Achilles. "I killed Poke. I strangled her and put her in the river.”

"Go on.”

"What more? You want to know how she wet herself and took a horsehocky while she was dying? You want to know how her eyes bugged out?”

"One murder doesn't get you psychiatric confinement, Achilles. You know you've killed before.”

"What makes you think so?”

"Because it didn't bother you.”

It never bothered, not even the first time. You just don't understand power. If it bothers you, you aren't fit to have power. "I killed Ulysses, of course, but just because he was a nuisance.”

"And?”

"I'm not a mass murderer, Bean.”

"You live to kill, Achilles. Spill it all. And then convince me that it really was all.”

But Achilles had just been playing. He had already decided to tell it all.

"The most recent was Dr. Vivian Delamar," he said. "I told her not to do the operations under total anaesthetic. I told her to leave me alert, I could take it even if there was pain. But she had to be in control. Well, if she really loved control so much, why did she turn her back on me? And why was she so stupid as to think I really had a gun? By pressing hard in her back, I made it so she didn't even feel the needle go in right next to where the tongue depressors were poking her. Died of a heart attack right there in her own office. Nobody even knew I'd been in there. You want more?”

"I want it all, Achilles.”

It took twenty minutes, but Achilles gave them the whole chronicle, all seven times he had set things right. He liked it, actually, telling them like this. Nobody had ever had a chance to understand how powerful he was till now. He wanted to see their faces, that's the only thing that was missing. He wanted to see the disgust that would reveal their weakness, their inability to look power in the face. Machiavelli understood. If you intend to rule, you don't shrink from killing. Saddam Hussein knew it -- you have to be willing to kill with your own hand. You can't stand back and let others do it for you all the time. And Stalin understood it, too -- you can never be loyal to anybody, because that only weakens you. Lenin was good to Stalin, gave him his chance, raised him out of nothing to be the keeper of the gate to power. But that didn't stop Stalin from imprisoning Lenin and then killing him. That's what these fools would never understand. All those military writers were just armchair philosophers. All that military history -- most of it was useless. War was just one of the tools that the great men used to get and keep their power. And the only way to stop a great man was the way Brutus did it.

Bean, you're no Brutus.

Turn on the light. Let me see the faces.

But the light did not go on. When he was finished, when they left, there was only the light through the door, silhouetting them as they left. Five of them. All naked, but carrying the recording equipment. They even tested it, to make sure it had picked up Achilles's confession. He heard his own voice, strong and unwavering. Proud of what he'd done. That would prove to the weaklings that he was "insane." They would keep him alive. Until the universe bent things to his will yet again, and set him free to reign with blood and horror on Earth. Since they hadn't let him see their faces, he'd have no choice. When all the power was in his hands, he'd have to kill everyone who was in Battle School at this time. That would be a good idea, anyway. Since all the brilliant military minds of the age had been assembled here at one time or another, it was obvious that in order to rule safely, Achilles would have to get rid of everyone whose name had ever been on a Battle School roster. Then there'd be no rivals. And he'd keep testing children as long as he lived, finding any with the slightest spark of military talent. Herod understood how you stay in power.

Does it seem as though Card is endorsing the the worldview of this character?

I've tried other OSC fiction; his Old Testament novels are horribly written. They're dull, repetitious, and on reflection that repetitiveness reminds me a lot of Kevin J. Anderson's style. Never say something once if you can say it fifty more times, and it's not really anything that matters that much. Not that I drink, but if I'd had a drink for every time OSC said that Leah had "tender eyes" or described her as "tender-eyed", I'd have ended up with alcohol poisoning.

Seems like you just went through his worst stuff. You did read Ender's Game, right? Try the first Pathfinder book, Pastwatch, or Earth Unaware. And if you don't mind spoiling the Shadow series, I think Ender in Exile is an amazing book, even more so because by all rights it should be filler.

Given how his Ender's Game series basically devolved into fascist apologia (or he was startling unaware of the Unfortunate Implications of what he was writing) I'm not sure I'm surprised. TBH I'm more disapproving of his fascist apologia then his beliefs on gays or what have you.

Ordinarily, I don't bother responding to people who claim the Ender books "justify genocide," but it's worth noting that he seems to actually be condemning this attitude in another book:

Spoiler Spoilers for the Pathfinder series :
(A discussion of how to fend off a genocidal invasion of their planet by the people of Earth.)

“The mice,” said Umbo, as if it were the most obvious thing in the world.

“What can they do?” asked Param.

“If a breeding pair can make it back to Earth,” said Umbo, “they’ll have maybe a dozen children after three weeks. If only five of them are females, and they reach sexual maturity in six weeks, and they have the same number of female children, five in a generation, how many will they have before that Destroyer fleet is scheduled to take off?”

Loaf raised a hand. “These mice reach sexual maturity in four weeks. It’s one of the first changes Mouse-Breeder made.”

“Even without any notion of weaponry when they arrive,” said Umbo, “they’ll have several generations to learn all about it on Earth. And plenty of time in which to carry out the war. They won’t even need to learn about mechanical weapons, anyway. They’re experts on genes. Look what they did to us.”

Param was in awe. “You think a pair of mice could destroy the human race in a year?”

“That’s if only one breeding pair makes it through,” said Umbo. “And I’m betting more than that will make it.”

“Mice are vermin, in the eyes of Earth people,” said Olivenko. “They’ll exterminate them.”

“They won’t even know the mice are there,” said Umbo. “It won’t be like the library, where they’re out in the open. Mice are good at hiding. And the voyage doesn’t take long.”

“How will they get off the ship?” asked Param.

“They’re collectively even smarter than we are,” said Rigg. “They’ll find a way.”

“And then the Destroyers won’t come,” said Param. “So Garden will be saved.”

No one answered her. Umbo looked away. Rigg blushed. Was he ashamed of her?

“That’s true,” said Loaf. “But how is it better to trade the destruction of human life on one planet for another?”

Param shook her head. “It isn’t, except for one point. This way, the planet that survives is ours. And I count that as very much better than the other way around. Does that make me a monster?”
“We’re all monsters,” said Loaf, “because we all thought of that. We’re just ashamed of ourselves for thinking it.”

“I’m not,” said Param.

And then it occurred to her that that was why Rigg had blushed. Because he was ashamed of her for not being ashamed.

Which was why Rigg could never have been King-in-the-Tent.

(Later, Param abandons this worldview and 'redeems' herself, so it's pretty clear what Card thinks of it.)

I'm assuming that you're using fascism as a byword for genocide, because I can't really see how the Ender books could be seen as endorsing the former.
 
Ordinarily, I don't bother responding to people who claim the Ender books "justify genocide," but it's worth noting that he seems to actually be condemning this attitude in another book:

Ender's Game (which I have always thought of as a great book) is set in a totalitarian state. That totalitarian state uses the same "necessary for our survival against an external existential threat" justification that every totalitarian state, ever, has used. Science fiction benefits from the fact that you can access genuine existential threats at the planetary scale that actually make the justification workable. It is only when you find out that Card believes that Islam is an existential threat equivalent to the bugs, and western civilization is in need of someone like Ender, that things get messy.
 
Ender's Game (which I have always thought of as a great book) is set in a totalitarian state. That totalitarian state uses the same "necessary for our survival against an external existential threat" justification that every totalitarian state, ever, has used.

And they finally achieve their goal by accidentally eliminating a well-intentioned alien race (which the hero then dedicates his life to undoing).

It is only when you find out that Card believes that Islam is an existential threat equivalent to the bugs, and western civilization is in need of someone like Ender, that things get messy.

Well I don't think he believes any such thing, so that's not a problem for me. Also, here is the explicit reasoning behind the destruction of the Formic homeworld:

Spoiler Spoiler for Ender's Shadow :
"I'm waiting," said Dimak. "Give me the insights that occupied you for two hours just yesterday.”

"Well of course fortifications are impossible in space," said Bean. "In the traditional sense, that is. But there are things you can do. Like his mini-fortresses, where you leave a sallying force outside the main fortification. You can station squads of ships to intercept raiders. And there are barriers you can put up. Mines. Fields of flotsam to cause collisions with fast-moving ships, holing them. That sort of thing.”

Dimak nodded, but said nothing.

Bean was beginning to warm to the discussion. "The real problem is that unlike Vauban, we have only one strong point worth defending -- Earth. And the enemy is not limited to a primary direction of approach. He could come from anywhere. From anywhere all at once. So we run into the classic problem of defense, cubed. The farther out you deploy your defenses, the more of them you have to have, and if your resources are limited, you soon have more fortifications than you can man. What good are bases on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn or Neptune, when the enemy doesn't even have to come in on the plane of the ecliptic? He can bypass all our fortifications. The way Nimitz and MacArthur used two-dimensional island-hopping against the defense in depth of the Japanese in World War II. Only our enemy can work in three dimensions. Therefore we cannot possibly maintain defense in depth. Our only defense is early detection and a single massed force.”

Dimak nodded slowly. His face showed no expression. "Go on.”

Go on? That wasn't enough to explain two hours of reading? "Well, so I thought that even that was a recipe for disaster, because the enemy is free to divide his forces. So even if we intercept and defeat ninety-nine of a hundred attacking squadrons, he only has to get one squadron through to cause terrible devastation on Earth. We saw how much territory a single ship could scour when they first showed up and started burning over China. Get ten ships to Earth for a single day -- and if they spread us out enough, they'd have a lot more than a day! -- and they could wipe out most of our main population centers. All our eggs are in that one basket.”

"And all this you got from Vauban," said Dimak.

Finally. That was apparently enough to satisfy him. "From thinking about Vauban, and how much harder our defensive problem is.”

"So," said Dimak, "what's your solution?”

Solution? What did Dimak think Bean was? I'm thinking about how to get control of the situation here in Battle School, not how to save the world! "I don't think there is a solution," said Bean, buying time again. But then, having said it, he began to believe it. "There's no point in trying to defend Earth at all. In fact, unless they have some defensive device we don't know about, like some way of putting an invisible shield around a planet or something, the enemy is just as vulnerable. So the only strategy that makes any sense at all is an all-out attack. To send our fleet against their home world and destroy it.”

"What if our fleets pass in the night?" asked Dimak. "We destroy each other's worlds and all we have left are ships?”

"No," said Bean, his mind racing. "Not if we sent out a fleet immediately after the Second Bugger War. After Mazer Rackham's strike force defeated them, it would take time for word of their defeat to come back to them. So we build a fleet as quickly as possible and launch it against their home world immediately. That way the news of their defeat reaches them at the same time as our devastating counterattack.”

Dimak closed his eyes. "Now you tell us.”

"No," said Bean, as it dawned on him that he was right about everything. "That fleet was already sent. Before anybody on this station was born, that fleet was launched.”

"Interesting theory," said Dimak. "Of course you're wrong on every point.”

"No I'm not," said Bean. He knew he wasn't wrong, because Dimak's air of calm was not holding. Sweat was standing out on his forehead. Bean had hit on something really important here, and Dimak knew it.

"I mean your theory is right, about the difficulty of defense in space. But hard as it is, we still have to do it, and that's why you're here. As to some fleet we supposedly launched -- the Second Bugger War exhausted humanity's resources, Bean. It's taken us this long to get a reasonable-sized fleet again. And to get better weaponry for the next battle. If you learned anything from Vauban, you should have learned that you can't build more than your people have resources to support. Besides which, you're assuming we know where the enemy's home world is. But your analysis is good insofar as you've identified the magnitude of the problem we face.”

Dimak got up from the bunk. "It's nice to know that your study time isn't completely wasted on breaking into the computer system," he said.

With that parting shot, he left the barracks.

Bean got up and walked back to his own bunk, where he got dressed. No time for a shower now, and it didn't matter anyway. Because he knew that he had struck a nerve in what he said to Dimak. The Second Bugger War hadn't exhausted humanity's resources, Bean was sure of that. The problems of defending a planet were so obvious that the I.F. couldn't possibly have missed them, especially not in the aftermath of a nearly-lost war. They knew they had to attack. They built the fleet. They launched it. It was gone. It was inconceivable that they had done anything else.

I don't see a lot of parallel to Muslims here.
 
Seems like you just went through his worst stuff. You did read Ender's Game, right? Try the first Pathfinder book, Pastwatch, or Earth Unaware. And if you don't mind spoiling the Shadow series, I think Ender in Exile is an amazing book, even more so because by all rights it should be filler.
Sorry, but he had his chance to make a good first impression 35 years ago, and blew it. I might have one of the Enders books around here, but I don't remember and if it is here, it's one I didn't read. Please understand that I've got thousands of books, magazines, fanzines, music books, craft books, and so on. There used to be a time when I could remember off the top of my head what I have, but that was over 40 years ago. The collection grew at a much faster pace after I attended SF conventions, and faster still once I was online and had access to eBay and Amazon.

My book budget is a lot tighter now, and space is definitely a lot tighter. My next planned book purchases include Bova's latest novel, and Philippa Gregory's latest Tudor novel. I don't even buy many Star Trek books anymore, and I know there are dozens out there I don't have. Not sure what the price of books is where you are, but here $10 is a cheap new paperback. That's the Amazon price. It's more in the offline stores. So I need to be much more selective in what makes it into my carts these days.

And while I appreciate OSC's relative giving me the opportunity to do my term papers on science fiction that year - easiest papers I ever wrote - that doesn't change the fact that my Mormon prof tried to convert me, his student - on campus. I could have reported him for that, because it was against the rules. Some of my classmates said I should have reported him.

For me both meeting OSC at the convention and his uncle/cousin's attempt to convert me because he was disturbed at the lack of religion in my daily life (on a survey my score for that was into the negatives when nobody else in the class was even close to negative numbers) are linked. I did give OSC another chance many years later and as said, I found his writing dull and repetitive. So that's that. I don't have much reason to give him a third chance. I actually do prune my book collection now and then, and most of his stuff is on the list to go, not that there was much in the first place.
 
Sorry, but he had his chance to make a good first impression 35 years ago, and blew it.

"I read The Casual Vacancy and half a Robert Galbraith novel, and they weren't really that great. Never touching Rowling again!"
 
And they finally achieve their goal by accidentally eliminating a well-intentioned alien race (which the hero then dedicates his life to undoing).

Yeah, that was no accident. They may have misunderstood the intentions of the enemy, but they eliminated them on purpose. That's a big part of Card's position on genocide. The enemy might be well intentioned, but a responsible government can't take that chance. Even as the hero goes through however many books of undoing the genocide, even he never really questions the idea that the government did what it had to do under the circumstances at the time.

His parallel to Islam, whether you want to believe it or not, is that only western culture and technology have made it possible for the Earth to support the current population, so a threat to western culture and civilization promises a massive die-back...and if they are going to cause a massive die-back then preemptive genocide on part of humanity is a net win for humanity. Threats to western culture must be countered conclusively by any means necessary. Refugee populations breed terrorists, so even while acknowledging that the refugee population's complaint might be, or even is almost certainly, legitimate, the only responsible thing to do is exterminate them.

A random die-back may do Darwin's work, but Card believes we have come too far for natural evolution and have to take responsibility for guiding it in the 'right' direction, defined as 'towards supporting our current level of population and beyond.'
 
Summarized for brevity.
<---accounting of yet another grudge against someone who didn't like her "because she is an atheist."--->

Does it ever occur to you that possibly, among all these people that dislike you, not all of them dislike you because you are an atheist?
 
Yeah, that was no accident. They may have misunderstood the intentions of the enemy, but they eliminated them on purpose. That's a big part of Card's position on genocide. The enemy might be well intentioned, but a responsible government can't take that chance. Even as the hero goes through however many books of undoing the genocide, even he never really questions the idea that the government did what it had to do under the circumstances at the time.

To be fair, he's right and the other quotes I've posted here show that Card is at least very cautious about the idea of such last-resort military action.

His parallel to Islam, whether you want to believe it or not, is that only western culture and technology have made it possible for the Earth to support the current population, so a threat to western culture and civilization promises a massive die-back...and if they are going to cause a massive die-back then preemptive genocide on part of humanity is a net win for humanity. Threats to western culture must be countered conclusively by any means necessary. Refugee populations breed terrorists, so even while acknowledging that the refugee population's complaint might be, or even is almost certainly, legitimate, the only responsible thing to do is exterminate them.

A random die-back may do Darwin's work, but Card believes we have come too far for natural evolution and have to take responsibility for guiding it in the 'right' direction, defined as 'towards supporting our current level of population and beyond.'

Thanks for elaborating. I still don't think Card believes this and would like you to show even the slightest evidence that he does. I've dug up old posts of mine on obscure forums before. It doesn't take that much effort.
 
Threats to western culture must be countered conclusively by any means necessary.

You mean threats like populist western governments who are undoing western civilization from the inside?

Either way, western civilization has always been evolving. It is not going to be undone by a religion of all things. It'll change and be different, and that's fine.
 
Thanks for elaborating. I still don't think Card believes this and would like you to show even the slightest evidence that he does. I've dug up old posts of mine on obscure forums before. It doesn't take that much effort.

I have friends who might be in a position to ask me to go to some sort of effort. You aren't one. Not trying to offend, just stating facts. Just like ten years from now if I make a passing reference to this exchange no one is going to be able to convince me I should dig it out for posterity, I'm not rooting around in ancient and meaningless history today.

Part of the reason I see nothing making this effort worthwhile is that, for all I know, Card may have grown out of his post 9/11 trauma fed rigidity by now. If this thread hadn't come along you can rest assured I'd not be spray painting anti-Card slogans on some random bookstore, or giving him much of a second thought. I still recommend his books (well, a lot of them). If I ever run across him again I'll rekindle discussion of his views because I'm always willing to discuss views. But dredging up his views to further discuss them with you or anyone else is pointless. I'd be much more interested in your current views than his views circa 2005.
 
You mean threats like populist western governments who are undoing western civilization from the inside?

Either way, western civilization has always been evolving. It is not going to be undone by a religion of all things. It'll change and be different, and that's fine.

When you quote me in snipped form so that my description of what someone else said appears to be my own view, please note the fact. Thanks.

Anyway, he was in the post 9/11 trauma world of "Islamic terrorists could cause the collapse of modern society at any time with a dirty bomb to London or Washington leading to disruption of the economic systems upon which all our lives depend." As I told Mouthwash, the guy may well have outgrown that. I certainly hope so.
 
I have friends who might be in a position to ask me to go to some sort of effort. You aren't one. Not trying to offend, just stating facts. Just like ten years from now if I make a passing reference to this exchange no one is going to be able to convince me I should dig it out for posterity, I'm not rooting around in ancient and meaningless history today.

Part of the reason I see nothing making this effort worthwhile is that, for all I know, Card may have grown out of his post 9/11 trauma fed rigidity by now. If this thread hadn't come along you can rest assured I'd not be spray painting anti-Card slogans on some random bookstore, or giving him much of a second thought. I still recommend his books (well, a lot of them). If I ever run across him again I'll rekindle discussion of his views because I'm always willing to discuss views. But dredging up his views to further discuss them with you or anyone else is pointless. I'd be much more interested in your current views than his views circa 2005.

Based on his fiction and his blogging, I don't think he ever believed it. Of course you should not be expected to have to dredge up something you read on the internet a decade ago. But you should be expected to back up whatever claims you make. As far as I can see, you didn't have to post it at all.
 
Top Bottom