“Ender’s Game” Controversy . . . really?
I listen to a number of podcasts relating to writing and entertainment, and I’ve been hearing comments, both from hosts and guests, saying they will not go see the “Ender’s Game” movie due out in December (see trailer at Apple). They are joined by the voices of many.
For them who are not familiar with the book, Ender’s Game, go read it.
Anyway, the reason people and groups give for their proposed boycott of the movie is . . . Orson Scott Card, the author of the book, is anti-gay. Gay advocacy groups defend their calls for a boycott with what are, to my mind, emotional but flawed arguments. (example)
Know I’m not defending Card’s views (he makes his own counter-arguments posted at Hatrack River), nor am I looking for a spirited argument from the LGBT community.
I do say the idea of a boycott is stupid. It’s stupid when the Religious Right calls for one because something promotes gay marriage, and it’s stupid when Geeks Out calls for one because of Card’s views, just as it was stupid when Fox News endorsed avoiding French products, and it was monumentally stupid and ignorant when Liberals called for a boycott of Apple products because of working conditions in China.
Did you get the gist of it? I think it’s stupid.
For one, it would hurt the studio who made the movie, and the broader film industry… isn’t the entertainment industry generally pro equal rights, gay marriage, and so on?
Card might have written the book, but the movie is the end result of the efforts of many, many people.
The loudest argument I hear is that going to see the movie funds the enemies of equal rights (Card). Well, it also funds literally thousands of people involved in the making of the movie, many of which support gay rights.
Consider the fact a large portion of the population is religious; using the argument that supporting the movie will help promote an anti-gay agenda may actually bring out a large number of people who might not have otherwise bothered with the movie.
Way to go, Geeks Out! What was your objective, again? (Side Note: when the Chick-Fil-a boycott was called, at many stores there were lines extending around the blocks; most people in those lines were conservatives supporting the company and founder, but many people were just curious about the company. While not generally true, sometimes there really is no such thing as bad publicity.)
The point is, the book is not anti-gay, or if it is, that message is lost to the millions who have read and enjoyed the book. That includes me. I read that book at least three times, and never did I get even a hint of anti-gay sentiment from it. If there is a hidden message in there, it did not work on me, as I am a firm supporter for equal rights for all.
But beyond that… if that is the litmus test, no one but thugs should ever watch professional sports, college sports, or even high school sports. In case people sleep through the news, watching most any sport supports a large number of thugs and wannabe thugs.
I’m pretty sure many actors are jerks and have the reasoning power of a gnat, and yet, we watch them on TV shows, watch their movies, follow their every move. That fuels their popularity, and turns them into terrible role models, and no one cares.
Politicians… don’t even get me started.
What about people from history? Thomas Jefferson… he owned slaves. Are we to discredit his works, reject his writings, and denounce his influence in the founding and shaping of the United States?
Da Vinci, Michelangelo… arguably producers of homoerotic art. Are groups of the Religious Right asking for a boycott of their work? They would be foolish to do so.
Often, the works of people transcend the people themselves. Ender’s Game is a great book, and there is no reason to believe the movie will suck (the only excuse not to go see it).
So, what message to take away from this? If you don’t have an interest in the movie, don’t go see it.
But if your excuse not to watch Ender’s Game is because you don’t like Card’s views, well then, you have an enormous task ahead of you.
So that you are not a self-centered hypocrite, you need to research every product you purchase, every service you use, and make sure you are not inadvertently funding someone whose personal views or actions hurt someone. Unless, you know, you don’t give a shit about that particular group because it’s not your group.
Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, here’s something I can get onboard with . . .
Wow… To say that I’m largely offended by your column is an understatement of enormous proportions.
First off, I do research politicians and corporations regarding their stance on GLBT equality. If there is any indication that they are opposed to GLBT rights then my money is immediately withheld from them. You can call that stupid because it’s a boycott. I simply look at it as not wanting to spend my money at a business, or for an individual, who opposes who I am.
Second, there is a reason why I won’t pay to see Ender’s Game. Card has a Producer credit on this film. That means he’ll see a portion of the box office receipts. True, there are those who ARE in favor of GLBT equal rights and they will be affected by the box office receipts as well, but that’s actually only a minority. The way big box office Hollywood movies work is that people get their salary up front. This is done because a lot of big named actors are too afraid that the movie might tank and their take will be less than what they feel they deserve. Producers, however, always see a take in the box-office receipts. That’s simply how the industry works. Hence, I will not pay to see Ender’s Game because I refuse to let even a portion of my hard-earned salary go into the pocket of someone who is offended by my very existence, or by the fact that I married the man I love (Keith Lane).
Boycotts are about making a political statement. I’m not doing that here. I’m simply refusing to let any of my money go to him. Will this hurt him in any way? No, of course not. But at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that not one red cent of my money is ending up in his pocket. By the same token, by not paying to see Ender’s Game is not hurting any of the others who might also see a take in the box-office receipts. The amount of money that I would be contributing to the box-office take, after it’s been counted and spread out to all of the people, would be negligible. But again, at least I have the satisfaction in knowing that I have not contributed to the income of one Orson Scott Card.
I’ll third what Ben said.
I’ve always been dubious as to the effectiveness of boycotts but if what I read this morning is to be believed they may be more effective than i thought. Our new government, in Australia, has floated the idea of using consumer protection laws to prosecute anyone calling for boycotts of products or corporations. Yikes.
So enjoy boycotting while we still can.
Wait, so Australian consumer protection advocates trying to raise awareness about dangerous products might someday be prosecuted under the very same consumer protection laws they are trying to hold corporations and businesses accountable to? I hope they were politely encouraged to educate themselves on the error of thinking that was a good idea to float…
WTH, did Scotty beam us all to the wrong timeline or something?
That does sound pretty crazy there Shane, but what is your source on that? Remember never trust a single information source, always verify because sometimes the writer either doesn’t fact check, or is trying to spin things a certain way.
New government elected 2 weeks ago has gone nuts. But the story is from the Murdoch’s national broadsheet, The Australian. FYI, Murdoch’s papers have much to do with the election of the new government. We’re calling it the Murdochracy.
Anyway, source of story…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/companies-to-get-protection-from-activists-boycotts/story-fn59niix-1226724817535
On your point that a boycott is about making a political statement, I would add that many years ago an NBC news commentator stated concerning the Christian’s call to boycott Disney a “demonstration of a spoiled kid throwing a tantrum because he didn’t get it the way he wanted it!” Boycotts do not now nor in the past have a favorable public viewpoint and are very very rarely seen as anything more than a spat between two or more kids that can’t play nice in the sandbox.
But there are exceptions and times where a boycott has worked. Where there is a social injustice where innocent people are affected (denying equal rights to homosexuals for example), a boycott is more likely to gain a favorable public viewpoint.
I second what Ben said. I also want to point out that Card is using this boycott to claim he’s being persecuted. That alone is enough to not make me see this movie. He’s also one of the heads of the biggest anti-LGBT groups in the country, one linked to passing legislation in Africa that makes being gay a capital offense. I have to wonder if you would have said the same thing about calls for a boycott of Golden Compass.
I tried reading the book and it was little more than a Mary Sue wish fulfillment and I don’t expect the movie to be any better.
One other side note, after the initial burst in business sales slid back down to below what they were before they opened their hateful mouths. Boycotts against pro-LGBT companies had even less success.
Card is an evil person who wrote fluff with the same substance as the Twilight books. His books aren’t worth reading and the movie will not be worth seeing.
I know that despite any controversy, I will go to see this movie. I will go and I am taking my boys to see it as well. In fact my oldest just finished the book, and after he finishes a reading assignment for school plans to read Speaker for the Dead, I have put all of Card’s Ender series on his Kindle. My second oldest is currently halfway through the book, and is looking forward to finishing it.
As to why I will see this movie. Well it has nothing to do with the LGBT controversy. To be honest I could care less about that. I care about seeing that my boys become strong, smart men who are not ashamed of that fact. Too many times in the media lately, especially children’s media, smart boys, or strong boys are portrayed as fundementally flawed. Ender’s Game postulates a world where the exceptional are held in high regard, and while the most exceptional are presecuted, they are not made out to be idiots in some other regard.
If I were to allow my own politcal, and spiritual beliefs to dictate what movies and TV I watch, well then there is a lot I wouldn’t watch. Instead I base my decision on what to watch on the content, not what goes on in the creators personal affairs. Not unless they are doing something completely immoral or illegal. What exactly is Card doing that fits that bill? He is merely outspoken in his belief that homosexuality and gay marriage are wrong, in his eyes. A view that many people share, do we all agree with them, no. Do we have to agree with them, no. Are we all entitled to our own opinions, yes.
@Alverant, what organization, and what are your sources on that? The way you make it sound, Card is going out there and signing the papers himself to pass those laws in Africa.
Apparently OSC was on the board for the National Organization for Marriage which has been linked to groups supporting the “Kill The Gays” bill proposed in Uganda.
OSC has been pushing for legislation that reduces homosexuals to second class citizens. Additionally he is also pushing the myth that homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals are evil pedophiles. Does that qualify as “something completely immoral or illegal”? It does in my book. I wonder if you’d have the same feelings if one of your sons announced that he was gay.
Alverant, I have five sons and my wife and I have acknowledged that with those odds one of them may be gay, by genetics or choice. OSC’s opinion on homosexuality being a choice is based on old data. Infact recent studies, and I will have to find the Scientific American article on the subject, has found that most LGBT folks in the study had a mutation on a specific chromosone, that other mutations on that chromosone branch also had other “deviant” sexual behaviours associated with them. In addition the article pointed to several case studies where individuals with brain tumors, lesions, or other brain malformations exhibited altered sexual preferences, and once those were addressed they switched back.
Now do not confuse that and assume I am saying that homosexuality can be “cured.” It is simply the way certain people are wired. However, like all things, the execution of those desires is all based on free will.
In regards to gay marriage, I am all for allowing LGBT couples to enter into a legal union. And that is the problem, we define legal unions as marriage. Marriage is a religious sacrament, but we have used that term as a legal definiton as well. If the term marriage was reserved strictly for the religous sacrament, and legal union for what we currently call the marriage certificate (the legally binding document), or some other term I think most of the debate would go away. The problem is that by invoking the term marriage, religous groups get upset and feel the need to get involved. Take that term out, evolve past it, and given individuals of legal age and status the same rights and privilages as those of couples in “traditional marriage” and what’s the problem?
The problems are
1) Marriage is NOT a religious sacrament. It was taken over by the christian church took it over during Roman times but it has its roots in secular power. Religion should not have a say in it. It was a way to transfer property (the woman) from one man (her father) to another (her husband). It was also a means to determine legitimacy of children and linage. It is NOT a term reserved strictly for the religious because it existed before organized religion. If someone doesn’t like the language, that’s too bad. Their opinions should not interfere with the rights of others.
2) If we say that marriage is a religious sacrament does that mean Atheists cannot get married or their marriage aren’t valid? What happens when one religion approves a marriage and one does not, whether it’s gay or straight? What about religion that allow for multiple wives? Should we make those legal? What you suggest would be restricting the rights of people based on what another religion says. Does that sound right to you? Should a faith you are not part of have any control over your life? That’s what you’re proposing.
3) We already tried “separate but equal” and that didn’t work. By using a different term you are diminishing the feelings two people have for each other. You are saying they don’t count as much and not as important if they’re the same gender.
4) OSC is trying to make the love two consenting adults have for one another illegal. Since he feels it is OK to interfere with the lives of others based on his opinion, why can’t we return the favor?
Thanks Alverant!
My wife and I are both Atheists and what we have is definitely a marriage and no church can take that away from us; that would be un-American. Any church can decide whether or not they want to bless the marriage. If a gay couple belongs to a church that doesn’t want to bless their marriage they can go take their business elsewhere to a church that will. That IS America.
One other problem,
Allowing equal marriage does not harm anyone. Prohibiting it does harm people. The only “harm” you have mentioned was that some people don’t like the term. Too bad. They don’t have the right to not be offended. Meanwhile everyone has the right to be treated equally.
I will second Sean’s September 22, 2013 at 9:41 pm comments. I too do not decide which books to read or TV programs and Movies to watch based on my own political, sociological, psychological, spiritual or religious beliefs, nor on the content of the personal character or philosophy of the author or screenwriter. If I did I would have missed out on some spectacular entertainment over the years.
Meh, I don’t really care. I’m all for gay marriage, but not watching a film isn’t going to say I support it more. And besides, boycotting a film due to the author of the book the film was based on, is only going to give him attention for his anti-gay marriage ideas. Besides, I think we should be blaming the people who bought the book in huge bundles, because it’s those that basically got the film made.
If the book was a flop, it wouldn’t have been made into a film.
Then again, people probably didn’t know back then. In which case, what difference is it going to make. Do you really think that if everyone watches this film, that the goverments and big companies are going to pay more attention to what anti-gay people think.
The only thing that boycotting this film will do, is to get film companies to tell book authors to keep their mouth shut on their political views. Which in turn, could lead to more harm than good.
With all that said, I’m actually not going to watch the film. It doesn’t interest me, and I hadn’t heard of it until now. Just know that my opinon is an uneducated one, with little knowledge in the film buisness, so please take it with a pince of salt.
Well said.
I am a Christian and can not tell you how many times I have told my fellow Christians that boycotts are stupid and on top of that that they are showing one heck of a witness hating on people instead of loving on them (which by the way is what Jesus did) and the concept that they are hypocrites because typically they are jumping on someone else’ bandwagon for the boycotts and not personally scrutinizing everything they put money into.
As for Card, I understand why you are upset about his comments made. But can I point out that you get equally upset when your comments are used to call for a boycott of say gay marriages or gay pride day or something like that. In fact, the local chapter of the LGBT called for a boycott of “The Passion of the Christ” some years back and even picketed at the local theater and it was one of the highest openings for an R-rated movie up to that time. So it did not work.
I created a post on my blog some time back about Card’s comments and my thoughts on homosexuality that might be worth a read at http://wp.me/p37kAZ-19E.
So you’re comparing an anti-semitic movie with torture to protesting a man who wants to make his religious opinions law. Your privilege is showing. Last time I checked in the western world people are much more likely to be attacked for being gay than for being christian.
Also it’s unreasonable to personally scrutinize everything we buy. There’s too many to do and no real alternative exists. We have to pick our battles and someone involved in a hate group pushing for religious based laws is definitely someone worth fighting against. Just because people don’t go to a ridiculous extreme doesn’t make them hypocrites. Claiming offense over something that does not harm you while defending someone else that will harm innocent people, that is being a hypocrite.
Fascism is fascism, thought crime and thought criminals will be isolated and punished.
If you dare refuse to think korrectly, in lock-step with party-approved current truth, you will be removed from the kollective and thrown down the memory hole.
Very effective threats to ensure the eradication of dissent; think like us. Or else.
OSC can have his opinions. No one is stopping him. But he’s not immune to criticism. Nor does he have the right to make law based on those opinions. What he’s doing is more than just “a thought crime”. OSC is doing what you accuse us of doing, “Think like I do or else you will go to jail.” At least those of us who are boycotting his movie aren’t suggesting people go to jail just for disagreeing with him.
Very vague. I didn’t know if Wright’s comments were to say that OCS is a fascist and the thought crime of believing in equality is punished. If the fascists are the people who want to boycott OSC’s work well then, um, I think under fascists regimes boycotts aren’t allowed. Conservatives who believe in letting the markets decide should all be in favor of boycotts. Someone is guilty of hateful anti-American actions then any markets that do business with them should suffer. We the people can vote with our dollars.
I was on the fence on whether I would boycott or watch in shame and try to put the controversy out of my mind. This article has convinced me to boycott. The premise that “boycotts are stupid” probably wouldn’t have flown during the Boston Tea party and it demeans the people that are hurt by Card’s fascist actions. If it were JUST his opinion that’s one thing but he has fought for legislation that would brand homosexuality itself illegal, not just marriage. Boycotting is not stupid. It is a fundamental American right. You can call someone’s cause stupid but the act of boycotting does make a difference. Maybe the next time a studio chooses to turn a book into a movie, they’ll look into whether or not the author is guilty of hate speech.
The difference between Thomas Jefferson and OSC is that OSC is still alive and he needs to be punished for his hateful views. I read two of his books before I knew that he was part of a hate group. Honestly Speaker for the Dead was one of the best books I’ve ever read but as long as he lives he will not get another dime of my money. I also won’t watch a Mel Gibson movie. We can’t let hate speech go unchecked. I have no issue with supporting art from someone who is politically more conservative than me, what I am against is hate speech.
So since OSC is alive and needs to be punished by your beliefs It’s okay for you also punish others in the production company ‘equally’. And your failed attempt to get me to boycott your ‘righteous’ choice make my choice to go see ‘entertainment’ evil….. Also doesn’t that mean you would be against a boycott of a movie based on ‘Mein Kampf’ since Adolf Hitler is dead and doesn’t need to be punished by you.
I’m personally offended by all bullying by commentators on here attempting to influence my by ‘shaming’ me because I want to go watch a movie on a book that is one of my all time favorites. Jack booted stormtroopers (either Black or Pink) should be treated with equal contempt. If you don’t wanna see it don’t, by the same token since I do Don’t equate me with a hate group. And honestly all your vitriol and with holding your $10 won’t hurt Mr Card a bit. Heck, i’ll tell you what I’m gong to do I will go see it twice. Once for me, and once for you….. Well unless we get a Starshiptroopers knockoff, damn you Hollywood give us one based on the book!!!
<>
Also I don’t have to reseach every product but if something comes to my attention I won’t ignore it. If I was on the way to see Lord of the Rings and I find out Peter Jackson is a supporter of the KKK. Guess what, I’m not going to f@#$ support his work! (Fortunately he’s not).
The slash fic and tumblr contributions that will come from the movie will be payback enough. It’s inevitable and in this case will give me a good laugh knowing how much it will piss him off. 😀
I had the misfortune of reading Homebody and the misogyny and poor writing in general was very evident without reading up on his discrimination campaigns. Now that its all coming out these last few years I’m really not surprised. Day job matches the night job.
Wow ~taking a deep breath~ I read this because I wondered what the fuss was about. First I thought folks in this thread and elsewhere are overacting. Then I saw the pattern; money then personal attack logic and then the down the rabbit hole list of opinions. Cool, everyone has some issue with something.
I saw the movie. It is a fair abridgment of the book I guess ( heard the book via Book Radio [RIP] ). I am not a big fan of OSC writing but I do like Tales of Alvin Maker; turn that into a movie. That should piss off every special interest group in the country.
Chill and do what is best for yourself, I do. That is all. Yep, no circular religious or political Point Of View (POV) from me ’cause I am not qualified to speak on anyone’s behalf but my own. I rate Ender’s Game, 3 kittens out of 5.
Wow . . . not only did I not know this had gone up, but I also did not know of all the associated discussion.
For the record, I went to see the movie. Not awful, but short of what I had hoped.
But, I guess the controversy itself is the point of discussion. I still don’t see it as a controversy, and I still stand by my words.
Apparently that offends Ben Ragunton. I would make the effort to educate the man on a few things, but the time has passed. Plus, you know, people can look up stuff on the Internet these days. And most of all, once someone has made up their mind about something (or someone) it’s very difficult to reason with them. I’ll survive.
The only thing I slightly regret is using the word ‘stupid’ in the piece. Were I a professional writer, that would have marked me as most unprofessional indeed. Instead, I should have used “foolish” or “unwise”, or other similar words. Perhaps “hypocritical” would have fit. Air through the engine, as Mal would say.