Thoughts on blacklists and when an author crosses the line to "Will not read"

[inverarity]

Orson Scott Card, most famous for Ender's Game and many other SF and fantasy novels, has been hired by DC comics to write the Adventures of Superman. As Card is also well-known for his anti-gay views, unsurprisingly, there is a great deal of outcry in response to this, including a petition to pressure DC to drop him.

So first, let me get a couple of initial arguments out of the way with before proceeding with my real point.

Censorship

Anyone who uses the word "censorship" in this context needs to just shut up. Even if one doesn't adhere strictly to a legalistic definition (government censorship) and accepts that public pressure, boycotts, and what amounts to an attempt at blacklisting is effectively the same as censorship, this relies on a slippery slope argument that never actually manifests in reality. Card, like many other popular figures before him, may have made many people's lists of People I Will Not Support by virtue of his views, but he is in no danger of being deprived of a platform or a livelihood. Even if DC Comics does bow to pressure and remove him from Superman (which I think is unlikely), that will be at worst an embarrassment for him. The Ender's Game movie is coming out this year. Card remains a best-selling author. And people tend to vastly overestimate the influence of Internet outrage. The percentage of his fans who even know about his anti-gay views, let alone care, is small. Nobody is suggesting that Orson Scott Card be fined, jailed, forbidden to write books or editorials, or never allowed to make a living until he changes his views.

But let's say this was happening to a much smaller figure, not somebody already wealthy and well-established, who could conceivably be economically harmed by efforts to deprive them of writing gigs. Are petitions to get a bigot fired and calls to refuse to buy their books censorship? No. Your words have consequences. I suspect the degree to which people think Card is being done unfairly is the degree to which they do not believe that being anti-gay is actually bigotry. If Card were famous for saying that black people and white people shouldn't intermarry, or that Jews control American politics, you'd see a lot fewer people wringing their hands at "censorship" over the backlash.

Separating the Artist from their work

This was actually the topic of my very first Saturday Book Discussion. It's a long debate in fandom, literary circles, and so on. Can you still enjoy Wagner knowing about his anti-Semitism? Should we judge 19th century writers by today's standards? Is it okay to love Ender's Game even if you think the author is a prick?

I think saying the artist and their work are completely separate is an absolutist position. To an extent, there's a "death of the author" phenomenon here (should you really care what the author believes, especially if it's not apparent in their work?), but there's also the issue of supporting someone financially whose views you find abhorrent (which is why long-deceased artists tend to inspire less moral conflict).

I of course do not expect that every author I read has only views that I would find unobjectionable. On the other hand, I can find my enjoyment of a book diminished by the knowledge that an author is asshole. So for me, somewhere there is a line that I can't precisely define between "That's a shame, but oh well" and "Eww, I can't stand this guy." It's entirely subjective, and it's going to be different for different people.

All Mormon SF&F authors are not alike

So, that said, a lot of people in fandom know about Card's anti-gay views, but somewhat less known is Brandon Sanderson.

For those not familiar with him, Brandon Sanderson is one of the new generation of best-selling fantasy authors. He's most famous for taking over and finishing the Wheel of Time series from the late Robert Jordan, but he's also written many other books.

Sanderson is also, like Card, a Mormon, and he has publicly stated that he stands by the LDS Church's position on gay marriage. This has gotten him a little bit of flack, but not much. I personally am still willing to read Sanderson, whereas I consider Card an appalling human being.

Here's the reason why: even views on very polarizing issues are not binary. And I personally place a lot of value on nuance and on intent. Note that all of the following is my opinion and how I personally draw a line between people I disagree with but don't necessarily dislike/oppose, and those who I find beyond the pale. Obviously, other people will draw their lines in different places.

There are some views that are absolute "deal-breakers" in terms of my viewing someone as a decent person or worthy of respect as a functional adult human being. If you're a Holocaust denier, or an advocate of the bell curve theory of racial differences, or you think the 19th Amendment was a big mistake, or you're a creationist, my respect for you will drop to zero no matter how kind you are to small animals.

But on other issues, I will make allowances for nuance. For example, I have little patience for libertarians (because I've never met one who wasn't either a pure-grade asshole or else was "libertarian" based on some vague points of agreement like "drugs should be legal" or "the government is too big"), but a libertarian doesn't automatically flip the "dismiss as a cartoonish loser" bit in my brain - though my hand is on the switch.

Then there are the anti-gay marriage folks. I have no respect for their arguments, which absent a religious justification are stupid, and with a religious justification are irrelevant outside their religion, but I do believe that a (small) number of them are honestly struggling with their desire to reconcile a genuine lack of antipathy for homosexuals with their religious views.

If I were to take an absolutist position that I won't read anyone who isn't pro-gay marriage, well, for one thing, I'd have to not read anything by any author who is a member of a "traditional" religious group, absent evidence that they disagree with their church on those issues. So no Catholics, Mormons, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Muslims, Orthodox or Conservative Jews, etc. Admittedly, all those groups put together probably make up a very small percentage of authors (at least of the sort of books I read), but still, it's just too narrow a filter for me. There is context and room for engagement on the topic of gay marriage that there is not, for example, in the case of someone who categorically hates all things liberal.

So, take Orson Scott Card and Brandon Sanderson. If you look at their respective views, there is a significant qualitative difference.

Orson Scott Card's most famous essay on gay marriage is probably The Hypocrites of Homosexuality, published in 1990. It's a long article, and yes, I've read all of it. Summarizing: Card takes pains to assure us that he doesn't hate homosexuals ("love the sinner," etc.), and I'm sure he's telling the truth that he personally does not want to see homosexuals beaten or jailed. But the key bit is here:

The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place, and, when they nevertheless proceed in their homosexual behavior, to encourage them to do so discreetly, so as not to shake the confidence of the community in the polity's ability to provide rules for safe, stable, dependable marriage and family relationships.

What Card argues here, quite elegantly I must admit, so elegantly that it might take you a couple of readings to get his entire point, is that laws criminalizing homosexuality should stay on the books as a "discouragement." In other words, he doesn't want the laws to be enforced (much), but he wants the threat to be there to keep gays in their place.

I don't think I need to enumerate all the ways in which that is a despicable and hypocritical position to take: "Sure, you can keep being gay, just as long as you keep it out of sight and know we can come after you if you get too uppity."

Since then, Card has written plenty of other things demonstrating that his views have in no way become liberalized since 1990. Not just about gay marriage, but polemics about liberals in general and President Obama in particular. The latter essay is not the closest he's come to all but calling for armed revolution against an elected government he doesn't agree with.

So, Card is very consistently a hateful individual with views that I adamantly oppose.

Brandon Sanderson wrote about his views on gay marriage here. Even before his August 2011 update, it was obvious that he was struggling to reconcile what he feels in his heart with what the LDS Church teaches. His position originally boiled down to "I personally don't have anything against homosexuality, but my church says it's wrong and I have to go along with that," and he later amended it to a sort of fence-sitting position where he advocates for universally-recognized civil unions that give all the legal benefits currently assigned to marriage, while making marriage purely a religious ceremony. While it's not entirely satisfying, I believe it's his best attempt to be just while not actually breaking away from his church's teachings.

Unlike Card, I actually believe Sanderson genuinely has no animosity for people who aren't like him. His views are evolving and he's willing to engage, whereas Card's views are never going to change.

I am pretty sure that if the Latter-day Saints announced tomorrow that they'd just had a new revelation from God and He said they'd gotten it all wrong about homosexuality: gay marriage was going to be recognized immediately by the LDS Church — then Brandon Sanderson would say, "Cool, that's a relief." Whereas Orson Scott Card would promptly join a splinter sect.

Of course this also implies things about rationalization and cognitive dissonance, but I'll try not to get up on my atheist soapbox here. ;)

So, personally I'm willing to cut Sanderson some slack. But I realize other people may not feel the same. Jim Hines has written a few posts about this (in which Sanderson participated in the discussion).

For those who might ask: would I feel the same about someone who's anti-atheist? Well, again, that would depend on degree and context. I mean, if I find out an author believes that atheists are all immoral scum, then yeah, I'm not going to read that author any more. But an author who is deeply religious is likely going to subscribe to some subset of anti-atheist fallacies, and the degree to which that would alienate me would depend on which ones and how annoying they are about them.

Anyway, I won't be reading the Adventures of Superman. Or going to see Ender's Game. But I'll read the next volume of the Stormlight Archive.

[Poll #1897223]

Comments

[shinygobonkers.livejournal.com]

really like your nuanced differentiation between sanderson and card here.

finding out about orson scott card as a person was such a downer for me i must say. i used to love his ender and especially bean books in middle/high school. then i found out and well...cant bring myself to read him anymore.

happy sanderson is less of an arse because i quite like his stuff too.

my answer to first poll question wasn't exact. its not so much just the issue, but rather also as you said partly nuance, and partly how much of their views come through in their writing. if their writing does not reflect their messed up views much (that I can tell) i'm likely to give em more of a pass since it won't piss me off the way that writing that shows it would, though i'd still likely at least avoid buying it/giving the bigot author money.

i also probably have read some authors whose views i strongly disagree with unknowingly because, much like my taste in music, movies etc...i read books for the writing and rarely make much of an effort to learn *anything* about the author...

[ebilgatoloco.livejournal.com]

I don't have much of an opinion on this considering I don't read anymore. But, generally speaking, I don't support places, entities, people who openly discriminate against particular community members like Chick-fil-A. I've never actually eaten there 'cause I'm not that big of a chicken fan, but after the scandal of last summer, I have chosen not to ever patronize at that establishment.

That said, I wanted to read Ender's Game, it's on my to read list, but now, I'm not too sure I'd be willing to do so.

[asulon-bellanca.livejournal.com]

Well I guess I'm just rather oblivious. I don't think I've heard about Any authors' views. It'd have to be major headline news. That said now that I know a little bit about Card (never heard of Sanderson) I'm debating reading your links and being truly disgusted and simply not rereading any of his stuff. I also read ender's series in high school, I wouldn't have watched the movie anyhow but it might have brought me back to the books.
I can understand your points about the differences between the two authors and how it affects you decisions about their work.

[kith-koby.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed this post very much, it was quite astute and I felt I could really agree with everything written in it. As a Modern-Orthodox Jew, many of the books I read pose this kind of problem for me, and I'm glad you decided to write about this.

You will hate Singapore then

[ray243.livejournal.com]

Regarding your view on Orson Scott Card, I guess you will pretty much hate the majority of Singaporeans.

We still have a colonial era law, Section 337A of the penal code, whereby we criminalise homosexuality and other "unnatural" acts of sexual intercourse.

The reason why the government have yet to repeal the law despite the fact that we are a first world nation is because the majority of Singapore shares the same view as Orson Scott Card, even when they aren't Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_377A_of_the_Penal_Code_(Singapore)

You will hate Singapore then

[ray243.livejournal.com]

Opps, didn't realise my earlier message was marked as spam because I've posted a wikipedia link.

Basically, you will hate the majority of Singaporean because a large amount of people here shares the same thinking as Orson Scott Card. They believe that the law that criminalise homosexuality should be upheld.

Look up Singapore penal code, section 377A.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_silverfox/]

"I don't object to the effort, but I don't blame DC for hiring a big-name author."
as long as they don't let him write about gays
If it were a comic about a gay character I'd definitely be outraged.

In general I don't react so strongly to homophobic people as I do to neo-nazis - which is probably partially due to cultural background and partially ... well, my Mum grew up being told that homosexuality was horrid and still can't bring herself to think about it even though she admits it's irrational. It kind of makes me think of Card as a poor fool whose mind is stuck somewhere deep in the last century, someone to be pitied more than feared.

[momofquacker.livejournal.com]

Good points well made. I have never read any of Card's books (though I have heard people rave about how OMG AWESOME Enders Game is, i never made the effort to read it) and now, hearing you confirm some stuff I have heard elsewhere (namely, that Card is an ass) I seriously doubt I will ever read any of his work. Just like despite enjoying The Dragon Riders of Pern, once I found out about Anne McCaffrey's views on homosexuality (especially what is now infamously known as 'The Tentpeg Incident') I just cannot bring myself to read them anymore.

[longstrider.livejournal.com]

A large part of my thinking about whether to give my money to an artist who has view I find repugnant has to do with how they act on those views. Also how much of that bleeds over into their work (see Card's Hamlet rework versus Sanderson continuing with and adding gay characters in Wheel of Time) Card, clearly actively working against gay rights. Sanderson, is not out speechifying against their rights and is probably not giving large amounts of money to oppose Prop 8 and such.

I can't just categorically shun everyone with those sorts of views or I'd have to shun a substantial branch of my family tree. I was googling a relative recently and many of the top hits were political donation lists with large sums next to Republican names. It made me sad.

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

I will be definitely buying and/or reading some of Card's novels. I disagree with many of his views, but the liberal crowd's baying against him is in itself a good recommendation a far as his fiction goes. Any artist the liberals take such pains to silence is at the very least interesting and often really good, as I have found out from experience.

Golly, we got some EDGINESS here, man!

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Card is hardly being "silenced" by any stretch of the imagination, but if you're just out to piss off liberals, may I recommend Peter Walsh (http://inverarity.livejournal.com/103994.html)? Truly an awesome writer, I'm sure you'll enjoy him, and just imagine how us lefties will cry as you read the finest fiction a liberal-hating writer can produce.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

While I'm willing to read a book written by a bigot, my general policy is to not give them money. Of Card's books I've only ever read Ender's Game, and the only other book of his I have even a slight interest in is Speaker for the Dead. If I do decide to read that, I won't be buying it new.

There is a big difference between Card and Sanderson. First of all, while I don't agree with the "Ender is Hitler" theory, Ender's Game certainly has some skeevy undertones. Second, Card has basically advocated armed revolution if gay marriage is legalized. Sanderson's nowhere close to that; I wouldn't call him a "bigot," at least.

That said...I have never seen a single good argument against gay marriage. Sanderson says this:

I believe that a prophet of God has said that widespread legislation to approve gay marriage will bring pain and suffering to all involved.

Nine states have legalized gay marriage (ten now with Illinois). AFAIK this has caused no "pain and suffering" there. Sanderson is a smart guy; he knows this. He also seems like a good guy, so his empathy is surely screaming out to him that gay people deserve the same rights as straight people. Why is he ignoring both of these? He says:

I trust those whom I have accepted as my spiritual leaders.

In other words, he trusts his "spiritual leaders" over his own eyes and morality. It's not like he has to do this; plenty of Catholics disagree with the Church over a wide range of issues, for example. In addition, even setting aside the political/moral issue, I don't think his attitude is conducive to good writing.

I'm not opposed to reading Sanderson, but I will admit his beliefs in this regard push his work down on my reading list.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's pretty much my take. He knows he (and the Mormon church) are wrong, but he can't make that final leap to free himself from cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, you aren't missing much. I admit I find his books entertaining, but he's a mediocre writer with lightweight ideas.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

You seemed reasonably positive about The Way of Kings, at least. But yeah, I probably won't read him unless I decide to torture myself by reading the Wheel of Time series. :p

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

Actually, I am out for some interesting reading, and experince has taught me that liberals generally organize their idiotic hate campaigns against interesting people in general and writers in particular. It's not always the case, but often it is. As for Walsh, I see that you take special pains to discover and read authors whose views you find disturbing, and then to insult them. Quite typical.

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

Of Card's books I've only ever read Ender's Game, and the only other book of his I have even a slight interest in is Speaker for the Dead. If I do decide to read that, I won't be buying it new.

It actually does not matter how and where you buy it. If you buy it at all, you become a part of the Card book market. Even reading a loaned or a library copy would have the same effect insofar as it helps to create demand for Card books. The only way to be absolutely sure you haven't helped Card in some way would be reading a stolen electronic copy, which is illegal, or not reading the book at all. Basic human decency suggests the latter, of course.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Or I could, you know, borrow it from a friend or something.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Actually, I very rarely read books that I expect to not like. I picked up Hostile Intent because it looked kind of interesting - I had no idea what it or the author was like before I read it.

I'm happy to provide more book recommendations, though. Since you are obviously a person of discerning judgment and incisive intellect, I can think of no more rewarding book than Night of the Crabs (http://inverarity.livejournal.com/150973.html). And it's got haaaaawt sex scenes too! Roowr!

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

And then somebody else who wants to read it and would have borrowed it from the same person might have to buy it. Nope, it's stealing - or nothing.

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

I had no idea what it or the author was like before I read it.

Ow. So the cover (back and front) didn't suggest anything to you? I see))

This is why the only recommendations normal people need from the likes of you are your hate campaigns.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Alternately, this potential somebody else could just wait until I finish reading it. Which would appear much more likely.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Ow. So the cover (back and front) didn't suggest anything to you? I see))

It suggested it would be a technothriller about the NSA, duh.

This is why the only recommendations normal people need from the likes of you are your hate campaigns.

Well, I'll have to think about starting a "hate campaign" to provide you with book recommendations. But I do hate Twilight and Dan Brown. You should go read them right away!

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

Don't bother doing anything on purpose. It's the instinctive reactions that are so telling.

It suggested it would be a technothriller about the NSA, duh.

Erm, no. It suggests exactly what is actually inside.

[nadiayar.livejournal.com]

Why wait, when the desired bok is only a couple of clicks away on Amazon and worth less then five bucks? I personally have bought a lot of books in such situations.

What I am trying to say is, of course, that if you think Card does not deserve the opportunity to make a living, then the only moral choice is not to read his work at all. Consuming the product while wishing ill on the producer is pure hypocrisy and theft, even if it's technically legal.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Maybe because they, too, don't want to give Card money? Or because if they were willing to shell out $5 for it over Amazon, they would've done that in the first place instead of asking someone to borrow it?

In any event, the chances of this scenario are so vanishingly small that I see no reason to continue to entertain it. I do appreciate your attempts to assist me in this regard. I hope your efforts to read authors for the sole reason that they're hated by people you don't like continue to bear fruit.

EDIT: I am well aware of your argument. I have never said I believe Card doesn't deserve to make a living, and I in no way wish ill on him (well, I hope his political positions crash and burn, but other than that). You are attributing to me views I don't hold, so let me make myself ultra-clear: I just don't want any of my own money going toward him. I honestly couldn't care less whether Card himself does well or poorly.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

Instinctive reactions like "Liberals don't like this guy, therefore I will buy his books 'cause they must be good"? Heh.

[indigo-mouse.livejournal.com]

I read Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead and Xenocide sometime in the late 80's or early 90's and probably got them from a friend, or the library. Probably the library, since that is where I got most of my reading back then.

I enjoyed those books, and some short story collections. Obviously, since this was before the internet was much help, I knew nothing about Card's religion. Its entirely possible I had never heard of the Mormon church at that point in my life - since it was a completely new thing to me when I emigrated to the United States in 1986.

What I do remember is noticing that he had this habit of writing about boys, most of his protagonists were young men. And some of the situations that he portrayed made me thing that he was gay, and not only gay, but rather enamored of children. I certainly wasn't being swayed by anything I read about Card himself (all I had read was his books and whatever was on the back of the jacket). But there you have it, in the absence of any information about the man, I was convinced that he was a member of NAMBLA.

It was rather a shock that he was so anti-gay.