Export thread
Should Orson Scott Card be Allowed to Write Superman?
#1
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2013/02/12/orson-scott-card-story-is-not-going-away/
There's a lot of hullabaloo being raised about Orson Scott Card and an upcoming special issue of Superman (separate from the main comics). Basically, there's a petition going around to have him removed from the comic on the grounds that he's a raging homophobic. He's on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage (which seeks to prevent same-sex marriage) and has been very outspoken against homosexuality and gay marriage.
He once wanted to outlaw homosexuality altogether, but has since taken that back. Still, he has remained strongly verbally against same sex marriage.
I bring all this up because it's a hot topic among comic book readers and thought it'd lead to a (hopefully civil) discussion.
Personally, I won't support his work. I've heard that Ender's Game is an amazing sci-fi book but I refuse to read it on the above mentioned grounds. At the same time, I'm not going to demonize someone for reading his work. I'm sure he's a great writer.
All this leads me to the big discussion question:
Should someone's views - especially when they're so public and supportive - be held against them with their creative work?
Chuck Dixon, another comic book writer, also holds very conservative views, but I've never seen him so outspoken about them. There's also the subject of controversial filmmakers like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. While I can still enjoy a Woody Allen film (though I don't think I've ever seen a Polanski film), I can't, for example, enjoy watching Chris Benoit's great wrestling matches anymore since he killed his wife and 8-year old son, along with himself.
There's a lot of hullabaloo being raised about Orson Scott Card and an upcoming special issue of Superman (separate from the main comics). Basically, there's a petition going around to have him removed from the comic on the grounds that he's a raging homophobic. He's on the board of directors of the National Organization for Marriage (which seeks to prevent same-sex marriage) and has been very outspoken against homosexuality and gay marriage.
He once wanted to outlaw homosexuality altogether, but has since taken that back. Still, he has remained strongly verbally against same sex marriage.
I bring all this up because it's a hot topic among comic book readers and thought it'd lead to a (hopefully civil) discussion.
Personally, I won't support his work. I've heard that Ender's Game is an amazing sci-fi book but I refuse to read it on the above mentioned grounds. At the same time, I'm not going to demonize someone for reading his work. I'm sure he's a great writer.
All this leads me to the big discussion question:
Should someone's views - especially when they're so public and supportive - be held against them with their creative work?
Chuck Dixon, another comic book writer, also holds very conservative views, but I've never seen him so outspoken about them. There's also the subject of controversial filmmakers like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. While I can still enjoy a Woody Allen film (though I don't think I've ever seen a Polanski film), I can't, for example, enjoy watching Chris Benoit's great wrestling matches anymore since he killed his wife and 8-year old son, along with himself.
#2
GasBandit
GasBandit
So pirate Ender's Game.
#3
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Eh, honestly, supporting his work to me would also include reading it.
#4
strawman
strawman
#5
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Oh come on. Let's not make this another Gif and Caption party. Discuss!
#6
LittleSin
LittleSin
Nostalgia Chick did a fantastic break down on Orson Scott Card and separating the creator from the work.
I'm too lazy to look it up but, meh.
Personally, I haven't bought any Orson Scott Card...but I have read his stuff because Blue is a HUGE fan of his works. I liked Enders Game alright but, in my mind, the best book he has ever written was Lost Boys. It was one of the few books that have ever made me cry.
I don't know how to feel about this fuckery.
I'm too lazy to look it up but, meh.
Personally, I haven't bought any Orson Scott Card...but I have read his stuff because Blue is a HUGE fan of his works. I liked Enders Game alright but, in my mind, the best book he has ever written was Lost Boys. It was one of the few books that have ever made me cry.
I don't know how to feel about this fuckery.
#7
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Something I realized tonight that makes me feel different about Card than I do about, say, Woody Allen or Polanski: the latter two examples only wronged one or two people. I'm not defending what they did, but it was still wasn't actively trying to hold down or take away the rights from an entire group of people across the entire country. I guess it just feels like a much different extreme.
#8
LittleSin
LittleSin
Oh boy. Shouldn't have said anything to Blue. He really loves Cards work.
He just told me that Lovecraft was an obscene racist. I don't know if that's true or not...but we're having a tiff because I basically otld him that "back then everyone and their grandmother was a racist. Even white folk who wanted black folk equality were kinda racist."
He's holding the view that you'll never enjoy anything if the creators point of view has to fall in line with your own.
He just told me that Lovecraft was an obscene racist. I don't know if that's true or not...but we're having a tiff because I basically otld him that "back then everyone and their grandmother was a racist. Even white folk who wanted black folk equality were kinda racist."
He's holding the view that you'll never enjoy anything if the creators point of view has to fall in line with your own.
#9
Frank
Frank
Fuck Orson Scott Card.
#10
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
LittleSin does raise a point, I will admit. Edgar Allen Poe, for example, was a raging Southerner against the abolition of slave labour or giving rights to blacks at all. Yet, I adore his work.
Maybe it's different once they're dead?
Maybe it's different once they're dead?
#11
LittleSin
As for Card, well, it's hard to say the same thing. I don't know his reasons for his homophobia. Are they based in religious brain washing? Personal disgust? A general unease?
All I know is that it's 2013 and I can't believe this is still an issue. I'm probably naive but... just don't get it.
LittleSin
Like I said, that was the time Lovecraft was living in. It's easy to look back and know it was wrong, but back then I bet no one really bat an eye lash.LittleSin does raise a point, I will admit. Edgar Allen Poe, for example, was a raging Southerner against the abolition of slave labour or giving rights to blacks at all. Yet, I adore his work.
Maybe it's different once they're dead?
As for Card, well, it's hard to say the same thing. I don't know his reasons for his homophobia. Are they based in religious brain washing? Personal disgust? A general unease?
All I know is that it's 2013 and I can't believe this is still an issue. I'm probably naive but... just don't get it.
#12
ThatNickGuy
Also, I'm sorry. I think this is the third time I've gotten Blue ranting about/defending Card.
ThatNickGuy
He's Mormon. Nuff said.As for Card, well, it's hard to say the same thing. I don't know his reasons for his homophobia. Are they based in religious brain washing? Personal disgust? A general unease?
Also, I'm sorry. I think this is the third time I've gotten Blue ranting about/defending Card.
#13
LittleSin
I have advil.
Also, I don't think all mormons are homophobic. I'd say not even half. So it's not really a good explanation especially since you can probably be atheist or Catholic or whatever and be homophobic/a dick to your fellow man.
If he says he believes in what he believes because he's Mormon, well, that's using his religion as a crutch for his hatred.
LittleSin
Ahaha. No big. Blue is always ranting.He's Mormon. Nuff said.
Also, I'm sorry. I think this is the third time I've gotten Blue ranting about/defending Card.
I have advil.
Also, I don't think all mormons are homophobic. I'd say not even half. So it's not really a good explanation especially since you can probably be atheist or Catholic or whatever and be homophobic/a dick to your fellow man.
If he says he believes in what he believes because he's Mormon, well, that's using his religion as a crutch for his hatred.
#14
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
#15
strawman
strawman
Yeah, ok, a re-read of my posts the next day shows I'm being quite antagonistic, so I'll delete them. Carry on!Oh come on. Let's not make this another Gif and Caption party. Discuss!
#16
Espy
Espy
For the most part I don't give a damn what an author/filmmakers/artists personal opinions are. I believe one must be able to separate the art from the artist. If you can't, well, good luck.
#17
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
Honestly, the reason I want to have this discussion is because I am torn on the idea. On the one hand, even I believe that a writer's work should be separate from their beliefs. And it's honestly hypocritical of me to not support Card while being a big fan of Poe.
And no, I'm not encouraging anyone to boycott his work. I never once said that. I'm not going to tell someone else what to buy and what not to buy.
But the whole thing has come up - again - because of recent events, which got me thinking about the whole subject matter of separating a creative work from the original author, whether their specific views are in the work or not.
And no, I'm not encouraging anyone to boycott his work. I never once said that. I'm not going to tell someone else what to buy and what not to buy.
But the whole thing has come up - again - because of recent events, which got me thinking about the whole subject matter of separating a creative work from the original author, whether their specific views are in the work or not.
#18
Espy
Espy
Now, this is commercial art and if DC feels he holds views that are not in line with their company (like misogyny and sexism, A-OK!) then they have every right to not hire him. That I am ok with. Thats business. If you are a terrible person you might not get that job.
#19
Ravenpoe
Ravenpoe
I believe that you can enjoy a creator's work without agreeing with their personal beliefs. Now, you also have the full right to choose not to partake in the work of someone you don't like, but I don't believe agreeing with an individual is a requirement for enjoying their work.
In the current example, as long as Orson Scott Card isn't allowing his personal beliefs to influence the story he writes (no turning Superman into a homophobe) then anyone who enjoys what he writes shouldn't feel conflicted about it.
Art (and yes, I'm going to say comic books fall into this category) should be able to stand on its own outside of the person who made it. Birth of a Nation was a horribly racist story written by a horribly racist person (and klan member) yet is still considered to be one of the earliest film masterpieces created. Then again, I don't know if this comparison really works, since I don't know of anyone that's seen that movie having actually -liked- it beyond possible admiration on a technical and filmmaking level.
In the current example, as long as Orson Scott Card isn't allowing his personal beliefs to influence the story he writes (no turning Superman into a homophobe) then anyone who enjoys what he writes shouldn't feel conflicted about it.
Art (and yes, I'm going to say comic books fall into this category) should be able to stand on its own outside of the person who made it. Birth of a Nation was a horribly racist story written by a horribly racist person (and klan member) yet is still considered to be one of the earliest film masterpieces created. Then again, I don't know if this comparison really works, since I don't know of anyone that's seen that movie having actually -liked- it beyond possible admiration on a technical and filmmaking level.
#20
Hailey Knight
Hailey Knight
I think Card is an SOB.
That said, Ender's Game is an amazing book that feels like it's written by someone with a for more accepting point of view. You should read it, Nick, even if you're not going to read Card's Superman thing.
That said, Ender's Game is an amazing book that feels like it's written by someone with a for more accepting point of view. You should read it, Nick, even if you're not going to read Card's Superman thing.
#21
ThatNickGuy
ThatNickGuy
First of all, what the hell does "voting with your feet" even mean?
Second, I didn't know that I'd made two threads about this already, so for that, I apologize. This will be the last because it bothers you.
Third, as I SAID ABOVE, I'm still torn on the issue, myself. I am absolutely sure that there are creative people out there that I've seen their work in one fashion or another that doesn't jibe with my own personal beliefs. The difference is that they're not publicly decrying the civil rights of a growing minority. I do feel like a hypocrite for calling Poe one of my favourite writers while he supported slavery and thought blacks were a threat to the U.S. Hell, I took a course dedicated to him, where I learned about all that and still walked out of that course with a greater appreciation for his work. Maybe it's the retrospect? It's that Poe can't influence the civil rights of blacks anymore, so I can enjoy his great writing? Maybe it's because Card still holds influence over the possibility of blocking the civil rights of homosexuals?
And again, I'm NOT TRYING TO STOP ANYONE FROM ENJOYING HIS WORK. I am not saying that Card's story should be removed, because from a business standpoint and his name value as a writer, that's not fair. People can choose not to buy his work and if it becomes unpopular enough that it doesn't make money, then just like anything else, he doesn't get as much work.
It's just that the subject is recent in my mind and thought it made for interesting discussion.
Hell, take Card out of the equation if that makes you happy. Let's use another example. I won't watch any Chris Benoit matches anymore because he murdered his wife and son before taking his own life. I just don't feel comfortable about it. There. Different subject. And again, I don't decry anyone for still enjoying his work. Let them. But does making him a murdering asshole change the fact that he was a great performer? No. I used to be a big fan of his. Is being a murderer the same as someone having a different opinion about the civil rights of a minority? No, it's not. But it's still the artist and their creation vs. what they do outside of their work.
And that's all I wanted to do was create a discussion about that, using the recent Card controversy as the starting point because it's in the news.
Second, I didn't know that I'd made two threads about this already, so for that, I apologize. This will be the last because it bothers you.
Third, as I SAID ABOVE, I'm still torn on the issue, myself. I am absolutely sure that there are creative people out there that I've seen their work in one fashion or another that doesn't jibe with my own personal beliefs. The difference is that they're not publicly decrying the civil rights of a growing minority. I do feel like a hypocrite for calling Poe one of my favourite writers while he supported slavery and thought blacks were a threat to the U.S. Hell, I took a course dedicated to him, where I learned about all that and still walked out of that course with a greater appreciation for his work. Maybe it's the retrospect? It's that Poe can't influence the civil rights of blacks anymore, so I can enjoy his great writing? Maybe it's because Card still holds influence over the possibility of blocking the civil rights of homosexuals?
And again, I'm NOT TRYING TO STOP ANYONE FROM ENJOYING HIS WORK. I am not saying that Card's story should be removed, because from a business standpoint and his name value as a writer, that's not fair. People can choose not to buy his work and if it becomes unpopular enough that it doesn't make money, then just like anything else, he doesn't get as much work.
It's just that the subject is recent in my mind and thought it made for interesting discussion.
Hell, take Card out of the equation if that makes you happy. Let's use another example. I won't watch any Chris Benoit matches anymore because he murdered his wife and son before taking his own life. I just don't feel comfortable about it. There. Different subject. And again, I don't decry anyone for still enjoying his work. Let them. But does making him a murdering asshole change the fact that he was a great performer? No. I used to be a big fan of his. Is being a murderer the same as someone having a different opinion about the civil rights of a minority? No, it's not. But it's still the artist and their creation vs. what they do outside of their work.
And that's all I wanted to do was create a discussion about that, using the recent Card controversy as the starting point because it's in the news.
#22
Bowielee
Bowielee
Honestly, I don't really care about an artist/writer/movie maker's personal life.
I don't really see what one has to do with the other.
I don't care what Polanski did, if his movies are good, I'm going to watch and enjoy them. I don't care what the author of the book I'm reading's stance is regarding X,Y or Z, I'll still read and enjoy it.[DOUBLEPOST=1360727103][/DOUBLEPOST]
I don't really see what one has to do with the other.
I don't care what Polanski did, if his movies are good, I'm going to watch and enjoy them. I don't care what the author of the book I'm reading's stance is regarding X,Y or Z, I'll still read and enjoy it.[DOUBLEPOST=1360727103][/DOUBLEPOST]
THIS![DOUBLEPOST=1360727225][/DOUBLEPOST]Now, this is commercial art and if DC feels he holds views that are not in line with their company (like misogyny and sexism, A-OK!) then they have every right to not hire him. That I am ok with. Thats business. If you are a terrible person you might not get that job.
http://chezapocalypse.com/episodes/nostalgia-chick-enders-game/Nostalgia Chick did a fantastic break down on Orson Scott Card and separating the creator from the work.
I'm too lazy to look it up but, meh.
#23
blotsfan
blotsfan
My beliefs with Card are that I didn't know he was a homophobe until after I had read many Ender books. I really like them and think he's a great author. Sucks that he's kind of a shitty person, but I love the books.
I'm really not looking forward to the boycotts and protests when the Enders Game movie comes out.
I'm really not looking forward to the boycotts and protests when the Enders Game movie comes out.
#24
GasBandit
Ender's Game is a great book, and in my opinion, one of the must-read books of Science Fiction. That said, I can understand how distaste with an author can sully the reading experience. For a long time I was unaware of how freakin' perverted Robert Heinlein got in his later years. I read books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers, great political screeds they are, and called myself a Heinlein fan. Makare always used to tell me she couldn't stand Heinlein. I asked if she'd read the books I just mentioned, and she didn't... she read his later stuff, a little of it at least. Recently I tried to read some of his later stuff. Dear god, the guy had the sexual compass of a sociopathic goat used to test viagra. It really let the wind out of my sails, unfortunately. I still like and recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to everyone I can... but I always now follow it up with the caveat "but don't bother with most of his other stuff."
GasBandit
By that logic, if I steal chicken sandwiches from Chick-Fil-A I'm supporting homophobia.Eh, honestly, supporting his work to me would also include reading it.
It's a capitalist term for how the free market at large tends to punish. If you own a restaurant, for example, and get outed as a virulent homophobe, people may decide not to eat at your restaurant any more - they will "vote with their feet," walking into a different establishment to spend their money there instead of with you, putting you in economic hardship, if not out of business.First of all, what the hell does "voting with your feet" even mean?
Ender's Game is a great book, and in my opinion, one of the must-read books of Science Fiction. That said, I can understand how distaste with an author can sully the reading experience. For a long time I was unaware of how freakin' perverted Robert Heinlein got in his later years. I read books like The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Starship Troopers, great political screeds they are, and called myself a Heinlein fan. Makare always used to tell me she couldn't stand Heinlein. I asked if she'd read the books I just mentioned, and she didn't... she read his later stuff, a little of it at least. Recently I tried to read some of his later stuff. Dear god, the guy had the sexual compass of a sociopathic goat used to test viagra. It really let the wind out of my sails, unfortunately. I still like and recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress to everyone I can... but I always now follow it up with the caveat "but don't bother with most of his other stuff."
#25
Cajungal
It's hard to find out that someone whose work you admire has a personality/viewpoint that turns your stomach. I read Ender's Game before I knew anything about the man. I understand people not wanting him to do it, but I don't know if I feel that way. I guess I have to mull it over. All I can say right now is that I support films, books, graphic novels, television shows, and musicians every day without necessarily looking into who they are as a person. It's just not practical to take the time to do that. We can't know the whole heart and mind of every artist. It might disgust people to think of supporting Card, but how many people do we support every day who might pour money into causes we'd never agree with?
I'm not trying to say that making statements against people for their beliefs are useless because you'll never know them all... just that I'm not sure where I stand yet.
Cajungal
It absolutely is. A dead person can't advocate for their beliefs.LittleSin does raise a point, I will admit. Edgar Allen Poe, for example, was a raging Southerner against the abolition of slave labour or giving rights to blacks at all. Yet, I adore his work.
Maybe it's different once they're dead?
It's hard to find out that someone whose work you admire has a personality/viewpoint that turns your stomach. I read Ender's Game before I knew anything about the man. I understand people not wanting him to do it, but I don't know if I feel that way. I guess I have to mull it over. All I can say right now is that I support films, books, graphic novels, television shows, and musicians every day without necessarily looking into who they are as a person. It's just not practical to take the time to do that. We can't know the whole heart and mind of every artist. It might disgust people to think of supporting Card, but how many people do we support every day who might pour money into causes we'd never agree with?
I'm not trying to say that making statements against people for their beliefs are useless because you'll never know them all... just that I'm not sure where I stand yet.
#26
tegid
On the other hand, supporting a person who has different beliefs can help support those beliefs. So I guess there are two very different things here: Is it that you don't want to support a bad person, or is it that you don't want to enable someone to further a political agenda that you consider wrong?
tegid
This is interesting... What is more assholish, treating very badly a small group of people that are closely to you and you can see suffering, or a large group of faceless people that are impersonal? I would say that the former makes a worse persone. Furthermore, one can have a lot more power over people who are close to them than over a large group of people (i.e. you can beat up your wife and it's hard to stop you, when it becomes political you can be opposed and lose).Something I realized tonight that makes me feel different about Card than I do about, say, Woody Allen or Polanski: the latter two examples only wronged one or two people. I'm not defending what they did, but it was still wasn't actively trying to hold down or take away the rights from an entire group of people across the entire country. I guess it just feels like a much different extreme.
On the other hand, supporting a person who has different beliefs can help support those beliefs. So I guess there are two very different things here: Is it that you don't want to support a bad person, or is it that you don't want to enable someone to further a political agenda that you consider wrong?
#27
sixpackshaker
sixpackshaker
I never liked shutting down an artist because of his personal beliefs.
#28
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
TNG, I think you've actually got two separate questions here.
1) Should someone's views be held against their own creative work or should that work stand on its own merits?
My thought is that it should not be held against unless the work itself makes that view a major theme of that work. And then you're only refraining from that individual work, not all the artist's works.
Now, you can argue about whether a work has made it a major theme or not, but if you feel that Ender's Game is not a treatise against gay marriage (which I don't believe it to be) then you should be able to enjoy it as an example of excellent SF by Card.
2) Should someone's view be held against their involvement in commercially-licensed or contracted work?
Were I one of the people at DC or Miramax or whomever making the decision about whether to hire someone like Card to write, their views and history is absolutely something I would look at. I would consider how his views inform his writing. I would consider how he behaves in public, representing us.
In this case, I would prefer they would not hire Card. He's perfectly capable of selling his own work, and given the extent to which we all know that personal opinions tend to inform writing, I would really prefer he not write stories for a popular cultural icon.
1) Should someone's views be held against their own creative work or should that work stand on its own merits?
My thought is that it should not be held against unless the work itself makes that view a major theme of that work. And then you're only refraining from that individual work, not all the artist's works.
Now, you can argue about whether a work has made it a major theme or not, but if you feel that Ender's Game is not a treatise against gay marriage (which I don't believe it to be) then you should be able to enjoy it as an example of excellent SF by Card.
2) Should someone's view be held against their involvement in commercially-licensed or contracted work?
Were I one of the people at DC or Miramax or whomever making the decision about whether to hire someone like Card to write, their views and history is absolutely something I would look at. I would consider how his views inform his writing. I would consider how he behaves in public, representing us.
In this case, I would prefer they would not hire Card. He's perfectly capable of selling his own work, and given the extent to which we all know that personal opinions tend to inform writing, I would really prefer he not write stories for a popular cultural icon.
#29
North_Ranger
North_Ranger
I'm just here to say one thing: ThatNickGuy ... Don't give Polanski's movies a miss. I won't comment on what he may or may not have done simply because in the end I don't know if he's guilty or not... But I still enjoy his films. The Pianist, the story of a famous Jewish pianist trying to survive in Nazi-occupied Poland is easily one of the best films I've seen. And a definite Top Three choice for me when it comes to Holocaust movies, alongside Schindler's List and Train of Life.
Orson Scott Card? Haven't read any of his work, so no comment.
Orson Scott Card? Haven't read any of his work, so no comment.
#30
fade
fade
If it hasn't been posted yet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent
More in response to some of the posts. Your issue is less literary (like the 'fallacy' of authorial intent), and more about supporting an artist with views you find contentious.
More in response to some of the posts. Your issue is less literary (like the 'fallacy' of authorial intent), and more about supporting an artist with views you find contentious.
#31
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
If I got bent out of shape about the beliefs/political viewpoints/lifestyle of musicians/authors/actors/directors then I wouldn't have much to get entertained by.
As long as people keep their views to themselves, and don't push their views on others then I am generally okay with them. This goes for real life and tv/comics. It's none of my business what your sexual orientation is, what beliefs you hold, or what idiotic political view you have. I don't want to hear it. I don't need to know that Ted Nugent loves guns and the NRA and that Matt Damon is against fraking. I'm still going to want to listen to Cat Scratch Fever and watch Bourne Identity.
As long as people keep their views to themselves, and don't push their views on others then I am generally okay with them. This goes for real life and tv/comics. It's none of my business what your sexual orientation is, what beliefs you hold, or what idiotic political view you have. I don't want to hear it. I don't need to know that Ted Nugent loves guns and the NRA and that Matt Damon is against fraking. I'm still going to want to listen to Cat Scratch Fever and watch Bourne Identity.
#32
GasBandit
GasBandit
I should also throw into my previous post - Yes, he should be "allowed" to write superman - as you are allowed to not buy it, and DC is allowed to take that possibility under consideration in the decision process of whether or not to hire him to do so.
#33
Bowielee
Now, take someone like Stephanie Meyers. Her religious beliefs, belief in abstinence until marriage, subservience to men, and such are ALL OVER her work, coloring it in a way that leaves little wiggle room (note I said little, not none) for interpretation.
I'm reminded of the shitstorm of the Christian Bale rant. I remember these very boards having a huge discussion on whether or not they would even see his movies anymore and some have even said that it taints their previous enjoyment of his work. I find this concept to be completely ludacris. I have a friend who was an extra on Iron Will and I know that Kevin Spacey is a huge douchenozzle. I know that Sean Connery is a mysogenistic prick. This doesn't mean that their performances are any less wonderful.
As an addendum, ThatNickGuy I know for you personally this is a huge issue, given your love of Superman and all he represents. I can see how this may be a big deal seeing as OSC's views are so contrary to what you would think Superman's views would be. The question becomes, do you think that his agenda would be so strong that he couldn't write the character in a way that maintains his integrity? Or do you think he's a professional and/or good enough writer to leave his personal politics out of it and write Superman in a way that keeps him true to his character?
As a writer yourself, I'm sure you've had to write characters that have wildly differing viewpoints than you do. Because they are so different, do you think that makes your take on those characters any less valid?
Bowielee
There's a great deal of debate about how much the intent of the author is to be considered when deconstructing a piece. Personally, I'm of the mind that once an author releases a piece into "the wild", their interpretation no longer means anything. Sure, it's insightful to learn what the author's original intent is, but the entire point of any art piece is to provoke a reaction and to open itself up to interpretation by its audience. The best example of this debate is the Star Wars franchise. How much of the franchise is George Lucas' and how much is the fan's? If George Lucas were to come out and say that the entire series were some sort of rasict treatsie (and some critics would argue that it is), would that make other's interpretations less valid? Or is the creator's vision the only valid interpretation?If it hasn't been posted yet, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent
More in response to some of the posts. Your issue is less literary (like the 'fallacy' of authorial intent), and more about supporting an artist with views you find contentious.
Now, take someone like Stephanie Meyers. Her religious beliefs, belief in abstinence until marriage, subservience to men, and such are ALL OVER her work, coloring it in a way that leaves little wiggle room (note I said little, not none) for interpretation.
I'm reminded of the shitstorm of the Christian Bale rant. I remember these very boards having a huge discussion on whether or not they would even see his movies anymore and some have even said that it taints their previous enjoyment of his work. I find this concept to be completely ludacris. I have a friend who was an extra on Iron Will and I know that Kevin Spacey is a huge douchenozzle. I know that Sean Connery is a mysogenistic prick. This doesn't mean that their performances are any less wonderful.
As an addendum, ThatNickGuy I know for you personally this is a huge issue, given your love of Superman and all he represents. I can see how this may be a big deal seeing as OSC's views are so contrary to what you would think Superman's views would be. The question becomes, do you think that his agenda would be so strong that he couldn't write the character in a way that maintains his integrity? Or do you think he's a professional and/or good enough writer to leave his personal politics out of it and write Superman in a way that keeps him true to his character?
As a writer yourself, I'm sure you've had to write characters that have wildly differing viewpoints than you do. Because they are so different, do you think that makes your take on those characters any less valid?
#34
GasBandit
GasBandit
Sorry Bowie, I gotta do it:
(*ludicrous)
(*ludicrous)
#35
Bowielee
Bowielee
I know, I'm at school, no spell check on IESorry Bowie, I gotta do it:
(*ludicrous)
#36
fade
A little off-topic, but there's actually an extremely lovely episode of Northern Exposure that deals with taking deconstruction too far. I must've watched it like 5 times because it is beautiful. Chris is defending his Master's thesis, which is a deconstruction of Casey at the Bat. His committee is made up of a young deconstructionist and a surly older professor who finds Chris's deconstruction terrible on the basis that he feels it rips the intended heart out of the poem.
Still think that was the best show ever to air on television.
fade
I placed fallacy in quotes because I think it's best not to call it one. It's one of those things that shouldn't drive your interpretation, but I don't believe it's fallacious to consider it.There's a great deal of debate about how much the intent of the author is to be considered when deconstructing a piece. Personally, I'm of the mind that once an author releases a piece into "the wild", their interpretation no longer means anything. Sure, it's insightful to learn what the author's original intent is, but the entire point of any art piece is to provoke a reaction and to open itself up to interpretation by its audience.
A little off-topic, but there's actually an extremely lovely episode of Northern Exposure that deals with taking deconstruction too far. I must've watched it like 5 times because it is beautiful. Chris is defending his Master's thesis, which is a deconstruction of Casey at the Bat. His committee is made up of a young deconstructionist and a surly older professor who finds Chris's deconstruction terrible on the basis that he feels it rips the intended heart out of the poem.
It ends with Chris agreeing that there is no beauty lost in interpreting the poem as a literal ode to baseball.
#37
Necronic
Necronic
The artwork itself stands alone in its aesthetic nature, that's simply how art works. When i read a book or look at a painting I am not examining the bio of the artist. I'm simply looking at the art. In this age of the Internet and wikipedia it's sometimes hard to seperate the art and the artist because we all want a more complete vision of the creator and the creation, but unless it's a story like Adaptation....it's not really relevant.
Now, that said, financially supporting an artist that will use that income to do somethig that bothers you...that's much different. But honestly, how can you even avoid it? Every motion picture you watch has at least one person working on it that has views that you find morally abhorrent. So no matter what you do your supporting your enemies. In some cases, like this one, the support is a little more direct. I guess it's a personal choice for the buyer. I read Enders Game before I knew what Card was, and I love the books. Even after finding out I feel that the good philosophies that he supports in those books are more profound than the damage his organization does. It doesn't hurt that Harrison Ford is going to be playing colonel Graff in the upcoming film.
Now, that said, financially supporting an artist that will use that income to do somethig that bothers you...that's much different. But honestly, how can you even avoid it? Every motion picture you watch has at least one person working on it that has views that you find morally abhorrent. So no matter what you do your supporting your enemies. In some cases, like this one, the support is a little more direct. I guess it's a personal choice for the buyer. I read Enders Game before I knew what Card was, and I love the books. Even after finding out I feel that the good philosophies that he supports in those books are more profound than the damage his organization does. It doesn't hurt that Harrison Ford is going to be playing colonel Graff in the upcoming film.
#38
Necronic
Necronic
Or the subject of seperatif art and artist (not considering the financial side I mentioned earlier), let me make another point.
Let's step away from art for a second and look at science instead. Do we care what kind of person the scientist is when we look at his science? Of course not. If we did then who knows where our space program would be today (without the nazi scientists we grabbed.). With science it's easier to come to this conclusion because everyone agrees that science is objective. Art, however, is much more subjective. But if we're even going to discuss whether an art "has merit" or "is good" then there is a measure of objectivity in the valuation of the art. And that objectivity should preclude us from considering irrelevant factors.
Oh yeah, and as for a list of people who you couldn't read if you couldn't separate the art and artist? It's a bit worse than you thought:
Wagner
TS Elliot
Degas
Ezra Pound
Picasso
Hemingway
Dickens
All of them have stuff in their lives that make them look like absolute pieces of shit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/o...-good-art-bad-people.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Let's step away from art for a second and look at science instead. Do we care what kind of person the scientist is when we look at his science? Of course not. If we did then who knows where our space program would be today (without the nazi scientists we grabbed.). With science it's easier to come to this conclusion because everyone agrees that science is objective. Art, however, is much more subjective. But if we're even going to discuss whether an art "has merit" or "is good" then there is a measure of objectivity in the valuation of the art. And that objectivity should preclude us from considering irrelevant factors.
Oh yeah, and as for a list of people who you couldn't read if you couldn't separate the art and artist? It's a bit worse than you thought:
Wagner
TS Elliot
Degas
Ezra Pound
Picasso
Hemingway
Dickens
All of them have stuff in their lives that make them look like absolute pieces of shit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/o...-good-art-bad-people.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
#39
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
I thought a lot of people read poetry because the poets were bad people and it made their writing awesome.
#40
Necronic
Necronic
The problem is that their tragedy wasn't a victimless crime. Many of these authors and poets made their family lives a living hell, a form of living sacrifice that sanctifies the work in some twisted blood ritual.
#41
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
Chaos worship ain't gonna fund itself.
#42
Necronic
Necronic
Books for the book throne!
#43
SpecialKO
SpecialKO
SKULLS FOR THE SK- Edgar Allan Poe, you put that back this instant!
#44
Bowielee
Bowielee
Northern Exposure is in my top ten best TV shows of all time.I placed fallacy in quotes because I think it's best not to call it one. It's one of those things that shouldn't drive your interpretation, but I don't believe it's fallacious to consider it.
A little off-topic, but there's actually an extremely lovely episode of Northern Exposure that deals with taking deconstruction too far. I must've watched it like 5 times because it is beautiful. Chris is defending his Master's thesis, which is a deconstruction of Casey at the Bat. His committee is made up of a young deconstructionist and a surly older professor who finds Chris's deconstruction terrible on the basis that he feels it rips the intended heart out of the poem.Still think that was the best show ever to air on television.It ends with Chris agreeing that there is no beauty lost in interpreting the poem as a literal ode to baseball.