Scheduling + mini-rant
Feb. 27th, 2004 11:04 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rushthatspeaksSorry for the short notice: there WILL be Evangelion tonight, but NOT until 8:30 PM as I have to make my way back from Center City first.
Now the rant: Dammit, Mr. Card!
I saw the link to Orson Scott Card's rather impressively nasty rant on the subject of gay marriage last night, and have been thinking over carefully a) what he said b) what people have been saying in response to it. I have come to the following conclusions: 1) he is being bigoted, biased, homophobic and unfair. 2) So are the people I've seen commenting on his rant. I haven't seen any intelligent criticism yet beyond 'Well, I never liked his books'.
Hi. I do.
I've read about two-thirds of his work at this point, and have loved some of it very deeply since childhood. There is one thing that becomes absolutely obvious upon reading any significant quantity of Orson Scott Card whatsoever: the man is an extremely devout Mormon. His religion informs his outlook so deeply that the thing I have always found most remarkable about his writing is the fact that his religious beliefs are not more obvious in his work than they are. His finest work (in my opinion Ender's Game, Wyrms, Pastwatch, and the Alvin Maker series) either shows no trace of his religious affiliations or uses them in an interesting and universally relevant way. I admire this: he doesn't believe that fiction should be didactic, even though he occasionally slips into preaching when he does not intend to.
However. The man wrote a play on the life of Joseph Smith. The man wrote a textbook on the history of Mormonism. The man lives in Salt Lake City. Given that his essay on gay marriage is *not* his fiction, given that he is *not* trying with it to create art for a universal audience, given that his religion *does* turn up in his weaker fiction on a regular basis... was anybody expecting anything else from his essay than what it is?
I was expecting it, and it still made me cry. I found portions of it really quite deeply wounding, because they are the descent into irrationality by a man whose intelligence I have had cause to respect, and that is painful to see.
But. He has done great work in his field (whether you like his books or not, you've got to admit the importance to SF and the lasting influence of Ender's Game). He is an artist and has spent his life trying to be an artist. An artist deserves to be read and criticized by a thinking audience. An artist deserves to be wrestled with, to be mulled over, and to have artistic work evaluated on its own terms. An artist does not have to be agreed with. Many of the most important things I have learned from works of art have been in a white-hot fury of rage at the idea that anyone could possibly believe the things the creator of the work did. Tolstoy hated women: this does not make him a bad writer; this means that he is a great writer with whom I have serious contentions. Card is not one of the all-time greats. I don't think his prose will stand the test of time. But he is an important and interesting writer now, and will probably continue to be so for some while into the future. I will continue to read his work, and, if I like it enough, I will continue to buy it, because the work is not the man.
And it should not be treated as though it is.
Now the rant: Dammit, Mr. Card!
I saw the link to Orson Scott Card's rather impressively nasty rant on the subject of gay marriage last night, and have been thinking over carefully a) what he said b) what people have been saying in response to it. I have come to the following conclusions: 1) he is being bigoted, biased, homophobic and unfair. 2) So are the people I've seen commenting on his rant. I haven't seen any intelligent criticism yet beyond 'Well, I never liked his books'.
Hi. I do.
I've read about two-thirds of his work at this point, and have loved some of it very deeply since childhood. There is one thing that becomes absolutely obvious upon reading any significant quantity of Orson Scott Card whatsoever: the man is an extremely devout Mormon. His religion informs his outlook so deeply that the thing I have always found most remarkable about his writing is the fact that his religious beliefs are not more obvious in his work than they are. His finest work (in my opinion Ender's Game, Wyrms, Pastwatch, and the Alvin Maker series) either shows no trace of his religious affiliations or uses them in an interesting and universally relevant way. I admire this: he doesn't believe that fiction should be didactic, even though he occasionally slips into preaching when he does not intend to.
However. The man wrote a play on the life of Joseph Smith. The man wrote a textbook on the history of Mormonism. The man lives in Salt Lake City. Given that his essay on gay marriage is *not* his fiction, given that he is *not* trying with it to create art for a universal audience, given that his religion *does* turn up in his weaker fiction on a regular basis... was anybody expecting anything else from his essay than what it is?
I was expecting it, and it still made me cry. I found portions of it really quite deeply wounding, because they are the descent into irrationality by a man whose intelligence I have had cause to respect, and that is painful to see.
But. He has done great work in his field (whether you like his books or not, you've got to admit the importance to SF and the lasting influence of Ender's Game). He is an artist and has spent his life trying to be an artist. An artist deserves to be read and criticized by a thinking audience. An artist deserves to be wrestled with, to be mulled over, and to have artistic work evaluated on its own terms. An artist does not have to be agreed with. Many of the most important things I have learned from works of art have been in a white-hot fury of rage at the idea that anyone could possibly believe the things the creator of the work did. Tolstoy hated women: this does not make him a bad writer; this means that he is a great writer with whom I have serious contentions. Card is not one of the all-time greats. I don't think his prose will stand the test of time. But he is an important and interesting writer now, and will probably continue to be so for some while into the future. I will continue to read his work, and, if I like it enough, I will continue to buy it, because the work is not the man.
And it should not be treated as though it is.
