owlmoose | The writings and the writer

Library comic strip Unshelved weighs in on the Orson Scott Card controversy. The message is subtle, but by the end of the week, it's pretty clear what the strip is referencing, and what the viewpoint of its creator is.

On the flip side, I also liked this one, from Free Range Librarian, who also raises the question of when information about a public figure's personal views belongs in their Wikipedia article. Good comments on this one, too.

I'm torn. I've been avoiding Card for the last several years because of precisely this issue, even though I've loved several of his books (Ender's Game and Speaker for the Dead especially), because I'm reluctant to give the man my money. And yet, the books are amazing and clearly worthy of the award and at least the Ender series is free of homophobia and obvious Mormon boosterism (unlike some of his other books; where do I apply to get back the hours I spent reading Lost Boys?). So it's a hard call. Does the award honor the writing, or the writer? Or is it both? I really can't decide.

I would never try to claim that the books don't belong in libraries, though, or should be kept away from teens. Definitely not. In that case, it really is about the writing, not the writer, and the writing is without question some of the finest out there.

(Background: the Young Adult Library Services Association gave a lifetime achievement award to Card, and controversy about opinion pieces he's written regarding gay issues followed.)

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

My vastly oversimplistic point of view: if the book is good but the author is a bigot, then honor the book but not the author. If this award was given to an author for their contributions to writing for teens, then I'm against honoring him. If they wanted to celebrate the book, they should knock themselves out.

And of course, the book shouldn't be pulled from shelves just because the author is awful. That goes without saying.

I like the comment, "If a well-known author writes and speaks about gays and lesbians in a way that many interpret to be anti-gay". I don't think this is just interpretation! I think he's being pretty explicit there.

Yeah, I don't think his homophobia is a matter of interpretation. It's out there, and not that hard to find once you look.

The president of YALSA relased a statement defending the decision; the claim is that the award honors the books, not the writer, and I think that is fair. I'm still concerned that an organization of librarians seems not to have done much research on the candidate, however.

I went looking at their web site (http://www.ala.org/ala/yalsa/booklistsawards/margaretaedwards/margaretedwards.cfm) and I see that they are a bit sneaky by having it both ways: "honoring his outstanding lifetime contribution to writing for teens for his novels Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow." This actually sounds a bit contradictory to me — my understanding of the idea of "lifetime contribution" is that it is for a complete body of work, not for two particular novels. Anyway, they are clearly emphasizing the two novels once they realized the author has issues, but the award is clearly also phrased as honoring the totality of his achievement. For me, I can't leave his views out of the totality of his achievement.

Oh, and from the same link: the insect-like aliens descriptively nicknamed "buggers." WHAT.

Timely! I was actually going to draw up a post about Mr. Card and the axiom that a person’s writing shouldn’t be taken for a person’s morality, proclivities, etc. I mean, don’t we writers shudder to think people conflate the characterization, say, of a villain to behavior that we condone or engage in for ourselves? That sort of misapprehension can have a chilling effect on writing.

And yet ... Orson Scott Card.* He’s not alone in the loudness of his opinions; many artists and authors run off at the mouth, as is their right, but I can’t say they should expect no consequences for their opinions. There’s JKR, saying ex post facto that Dumbledore is gay and leaving some fans outraged. There, I think it’s pretty clear-cut: a novel should stand alone, and any author who makes elaborations outside the work is risking the integrity of what’s written, even when the author is speaking freely about other topics.

The author becomes a personality. More and more, readers find it difficult to separate the characters and the narrative voice from that of the author. This can happen with an actor like Tom Cruise, whose obnoxious antics impugn the credibility of his roles. Or Michael Jackson, whose music is overshadowed by his oddness. I refuse to buy any of Amy Winehouse’s work because I refuse to subsidize a junkie, for example.

Here’s the danger in being a loud author. Putting aside the hype that no work of art ever lives up to, when I read Ender’s Game, I wasn’t impressed. I thought his characterization of children was pretty abysmal. But I had a vague distaste for the whole novel that I couldn’t quite articulate, so I read it again. I found that the message of the book and the tactics by which Mr. Card engendered sympathy for Ender were distasteful to me, in addition to the way they subordinate the entire book—all the elements of fiction, it seemed—to the message he was hammering home: a person’s actions can be judged only by her intentions.

Whoa! That’s not a message I’m down with. So I figured out why I didn’t like the book, why it made me uneasy. Then I went on to learn more and more about Mr. Card’s political opinions—which, again, he has a right to state. But I kept applying what I learned about him, the author, to his writing, and the situation worsened, to the point that I won’t read his work. Is this the same as theists who refuse to read His Dark Materials because of Pullman’s carrying on, both on paper and in interviews? Perhaps. I’m not proud to admit that. Ordinarily, I don’t mind being challenged by others. I don’t mind re-examining my worldview. But that’s the risk the writer runs, when he takes on a blatant authorial presence in his work and subordinates all aspects of it to a single message. People disagree. And making morality plays of your books when many readers just want to pass the time is asking for trouble.

As a side note, here’s an essay that better explains my problem (http://www4.ncsu.edu/~tenshi/Killer_000.htm) with Ender’s Game and its universe.

* It seems fitting that I wrote Andrew Card (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Card) for Orson Scott Card, considering. For extra lulz, I was in the shower—seriously, getting ready to go out!—and I realized my mistake. I need halp.

Edited 2008-02-10 01:05 (UTC)

I noticed the name typo and found it amusing for much the same reasons. ;) Freudian slip? Anyway.

Interesting essay, although I don't agree that it's quite so cut-and-dried. I think the reader *is* invited to wonder if, in his own way, Ender isn't just as bad as Peter and the others, or worse, and I wouldn't say that Card ever answers that question definitively, at least not within the world of the story. By my reading, we're made to sympathize with Ender and yet still be horrified at what he's done, just as Ender himself is.

Of course, I read that book many years ago, and it's possible that I would look at it differently now. I've been thinking about re-reading it anyway; maybe I should.

I mean, don’t we writers shudder to think people conflate the characterization, say, of a villain to behavior that we condone or engage in for ourselves? That sort of misapprehension can have a chilling effect on writing.

It's a theme we see in fandom all the time -- "just because I write it, doesn't mean I support it". But are we holding professional writers to a different standards? Maybe. I'm sure at least some of us are. It's an interesting comparison, not one I had thought of before.

Two points: first, just to be absolutely clear, I've never once suggested libraries shouldn't make Card's books available. I don't think anyone has suggested that, but the issue of library censorship seems to get tangled up into the nearly-unrelated issue of who do we take time and effort to honor.

Another point is that I recommend people rephrase Card's writings around race or religion. If he were anti-Semitic, would you still be comfortable? If he was virulently opposed to interracial marriage, would you still be on board with the award? Just a mind exercise...

Me, K.G. Schneider. Sorry :)

Hi, K.G. Thanks for the clarification! I never thought you were arguing that Card's books shouldn't be in libraries and/or available to children. I only mentioned that because that was how the Unshelved strip framed the discussion.

And I agree, I think there would have been much more pushback, and probably also backpedaling on YALSA's part, if Card were outspoken regarding women, Jews or almost any other religious group, any racial minority, etc. Unfortunately, some kinds of intolerance are much more tolerated than others.

The writings and the writer

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

To clarify...

And that was by...

Re: To clarify...