I would throw money at anyone who made a Culture movie (as ironic as that action would be).
Also, what about a Vorkosigan movie? Though I think it'd actually work pretty well as a TV show, with either hour-long episodes (one per book) or even with 2-4 shorter episodes per book.
The scene where Zakalwe visits the Ethnarch Kerian could make a splendid "cold open" introducing the Culture and Zakalwe in a suitably dark fashion....
Maybe a tagline of "Drug taking communists in space!" puts potential backers off? ;-)
As far as I know the only people who seem keen on the works of Mr Banks are the BBC (TV version of The Crow Road and a Radio 4 version of the Culture in The State of the Art).
Having read most of the other Culture novels, I'm actually reading this one at the moment, a fantastic read so far. I love the Culture novels, the universe that comes with it and all the intricate societal considerations.
I've been thinking about, hell, craving for a screen adaptation of the Culture novels, though instead of a movie, I think it should probably be a show. It'd have to be really well done, there are a lot of things to take into account and I'm afraid a lot of TV producers/writers might cheapen it. I'm thinking the likes of HBO might be able to pull off something like that.
I remember Iain M. Banks saying he was really worried about how TV writers might represent the ships, among other things, and I can totally get that. I can't find the source for this now, sorry, I thought it was in this http://nuwen.net/culture.html (amazing read by the way), but a quick scan didn't bring it up.
I don't think UoW would make a good movie. It's a fantastic book, but it would have to be extremely long to capture everything needed for a movie, and I still don't think it would work well. For one thing, how could you capture the confusion that leads to the final twist in film?
I think Consider Phlebas would be the one to go for. It has just about everything you could want for a fun action movie, but it's also smart. I recall Banks saying that he saw Star Wars and decided he could do better, and that's where CP came from, so it's a pretty natural fit. It's also quite a bit less serious than UoW and as a result I think it could stand being shaved down to movie length.
I also don't know how the ending could be half as good as the book? Also I feel like I spoil the whole thing by saying the ending is good because when you read it with that knowledge you might get let down.
Strange the BEST ending totally ruined by having an expectation of a awesome ending.
I don't agree. I think if I'd read the book as a teenager, I would have loved it. As an adult reading the book for the first time, it's nothing special.
It is something special, though. If you read it, you realize where the Bush Administration's foreign policy came from. And by extension, the Obama Administration's foreign policy.
I likewise did not enjoy the book as an adult reader. I thought it was far to apologetic for ultraviolent, genocidal overreactions to be considered healthy reading for teenagers. The end of the book is not "genocide is bad". It's "isn't is a shame that poor Ender had to be tricked into committing genocide?" It's not that "governments shouldn't be given the sort of power capable of genocide", it's that "you can get away with it scott-free if your intentions were good."
Also, the whole "they hate me because I'm the best" wore really thin on me. It's just not a thing you see amongst real kids. In fact, being good at things is a good way to get other kids to like you. The kids didn't like Ender because he was a self-righteous prick, a spoil-sport punk with a Napoleon complex.
The dialog also sucked. Grade A shitty dialog. As a teenager, you might be intrigued by the idea of alternative slang (and that is probably why Buffy the Vampire Slayer was so popular, and by extension why Joss Whedon has such a following now, but can't seem to follow it up). But as an adult, it is really annoying.
Have you ever been in a class where you are graded on a curve? If you're the best and you ace and exam, meaning everyone else gets a C or F instead of a B, the other kids don't like you.
There is more to a book than the end. Just because you know what happens in general doesn't mean you can't enjoy reading the book at all. Why do people re-read books? Why do people watch movies based on books, or go back and read the book after they've seen the movie?
I'm not going to destroy my prose with legalistic gerrymandering just because you're too emotionally underdeveloped to enjoy a story after knowing details about it.
Or at least the short story (albeit there be spoilers here). I vaguely remember way back when not being convinced that the novel, much less the entire trilogy (which was IMO uneven), represented an improvement over the original story.
I personally did not like Shadow, and stopped about 3/4 of the way through. The original two books were great. Xenocide and Children were...readable. The standard of writing went way down in Shadow, and while the concept was interesting, I didn't feel that it added anything to the story. It read like Card was just filling in the blanks in a plot outline he had lying around.
Reading this article made me impulsively buy the book again, except this time for Kindle (hard to pass up for $4). I think the last time I read it was as a young adult. Reading it now, it's still as gripping, but I wonder how much of our ageism - particularly in the tech industry - has to do with reading young-adult books not only in which the hero is very young, but that the ability to be "The One" is detected at an early age and in which anyone even in their teens is already past their prime (same goes for Star Wars)?
I say "tech industry" because many of us grew up loving sci-fi books more than the average kid. It's no fault of the authors, because of course to be appealing to young adults, the young adults have to be the saviors.
Too bad it turns out that Obi-Wan wasn't the brightest guy.
I like to view myself as more Chewbacca or R2-D2, since they are the only ones that seem to have their minds set right. Except for that one time R2 was memory-wiped, but even then...
"The oldest and most common Super Hero Origin. The easiest way to turn an Ordinary High School Student into the only thing preventing The End of the World as We Know It"
Taking a shit with my iPad before bed, so sorry for not linking, but kudos to (s)he who does that for me and adds the link below.
There is an interview where the autho, Card, admits this novel was just an attempt to cash in on the success of Ender's Game, in a way that his commercially unsuccessful (and pretty awful) sequels couldn't achieve.
I perceive it as one of the worst Sci-Fi books that I have ever read. It's not a very popular opinion though, with the book being widely regarded as classic.
I don't know that it's "great SF literature" in the sense of a Lord of The Rings or a Neuromancer, but it seems to hit people of a certain age in a certain emotional place. OSC managed to capture something about that experience that resonates with people.
I'm curious to know, what did you dislike about the book?
It maybe that I have read it as an adult for the first time,so I could neither sympathize,not find the idea of a brilliant 11 year old running an army particularly believable. I hated the idea of polarizing the world between the "good" US and the "bad" countries of the Warsaw Pact, even though I can see that it was a popular sentiment at the time. I did not like the dialogues, did not like any of the characters(maybe apart from Ender's sister,but even she was annoying at times).
I could not sympathize with any of the issues in that book,nor stand for any of its ideas. I really wanted to stop reading halfway through, but forced myself to finish it to have a full picture of it.
Having said that, I can still see why someone who read it as a child would like it - but it does not make it good overall. Just because I've read and loved the first Harry Potter book when it came out,does not mean it's a brilliantly written story, because it's not - it's interesting,but it's not well written. And I feel like this is the same issue with this book.
At the end of the audiobook, Card talks at length about the difficulties getting an Ender's Game movie made.
One problem was that the studios always wanted to make Ender an older teenager and to give him a love interest.
Another was that the screenplay was always challenging because most of the book takes place inside Ender's head. Once he figured out that he could tell Ender's thought processes through Bean, it finally opened up the screenplay.
... I think the movie that came out of Watchmen is pretty much proof of the conjecture that it was unfilmable. The director tried very hard to be faithful to the original - the changes were minor (some added ultra-violent fight scenes, and changing the nature of the SQUID) but the film that came out just wasn't very good. Some of the cast chewed the scenery a bit harder than was strictly necessary, but no film is going to have perfect acting. And yet somehow it just was such a mess. A shame, since I loved Moore's book.
Watchmen is a book that's designed to be read over and over and your own pace, with more to notice each time through. I think everybody skims the Black Freighter stuff the first time. Comics are so short that a good re-reading experience is prettymuch intrinsic to separating a decent comic from an excellent one. That doesn't really translate to film, since all the details and layers of the story just make the movie feel too dense.
You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that the actual specific divergencies and problems with the film that fans of the book can easily spot - the music, the small plot changes, and the acting - those aren't big problems. They're small problems that are easy to get past.
But as a whole, the movie is a mess even though there's nothing you can put your finger on as "see here? this is where they ruined Moore's vision!".
That's what I mean. The movie is a great and faithful attempt, but it still had a weak outcome. The book is unfilmable.
Sorry, still disagree. I find the book quite filmable because I say it's already been done. It seems to me you say it cannot be done because you already have what you want, the original book.
I strongly encourage everyone to abstain from buying the book or seeing the movie. You're lining Orson Scott Card's bigoted pockets to oppress sexual minorities.
Because of the mind-numbing tendency to politicize everything.
Card's book and the movie have nothing to do with his bigoted views, and should stand or fall on their own. In fact, the book (and possibly the movie), with its strong moral stance that resonates with teenagers, is likely to spread far more good by encouraging its readers to think about bullying, suffering of others, etc. than Card could possibly do harm, even if he wanted to, with its proceeds.
Historically, just about every famous writer has been bigoted about something; all of us are probably bigoted in some ways in which future generations will judge us. If the sanctimonious boycott calls leveled against Card succeeded in the past, we'd be left without many wonderful masterpieces that enrich our lives and deepen our understanding.
So what you're saying is... asking people not to spend money to support Orson Scott Card is on the same scale as giving money to institutions and people to 1) lobby against sexual minority rights and 2) encourage foreign countries to have laws to criminalize queer behavior, resulting in more violence and attacks on queer people. Cool.
Well, in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous, but it can be a bad precedent and have unintended consequences.
Let's just go with the notion that Card is expressing his opinion on the matter. He has a right to this opinion, whether you agree with it or even if you consider it right or wrong.
But anytime someone is allowed to shut down an opposing viewpoint it will eventually lead to problems. Once someone has the ability to shut down one opposing viewpoint they disagree with, then they will have the power to shut down any viewpoint they disagree with. Possibly even shutting down a viewpoint they think is of the opposition when it's likely it's not, such as a misunderstanding or being inarticulate.
The difference being, a person actually has to commit actions against another human being to for a reaction need to take place. If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day. The moment the guy actually discriminates or commits an illegal act, then do something.
As for consequences, this movie is an excellent example. If you boycott the movie because of your disagreement with Card, then you are hurting far more people then you will ever hurt Card. Another example, the Chik-Fil-A boycott a while back. That hurt local businesses run by local owners who employ local people far more than the dude at the top that still got paid no matter how much chicken you refused to eat.
If anyone has the generic "you seem to defend what I don't like so I dislike you" reaction to this post, you are practically proving my point.
I don't understand. Card has the right to express his opinion but I don't have the right to express mine?
Deciding not to pay for a product is somehow dangerous? Expressing my opinion to other people and asking them to do the same is dangerous?
If Card is allowed to say hateful things, then I'm allowed to tell people about it and recommend that they not give him money. It is not logically possible for you to accept the former without also accepting the latter.
Are you being willfully obtuse, or deliberately misleading? No one said you weren't _allowed_ to express your opinion, recommend anything you want, that you _didn't have the right_ to say what you want, etc. Why do you pretend that anyone did?
It's okay, that's one of the many responses that I would expect from this type of discussion. Often times it sheds an interesting light on a person that thinks stating their opinion gives them the right to prevent another from stating their own opinion, but at the same time claim that someone is attempting to stifle their opinion that they've already stated.
The original comment up there said, "People like you are far more dangerous, in our times, than Orson Scott Card could ever be." Just because they said maybe you shouldn't give your money to Mr. Card. No, they didn't come out and say we weren't allowed to say it, but they did call it "dangerous".
You're deflecting. This discussion is about your response to my post. If you were referring to the original comment without regarding what I was saying, then you should have replied to the original comment and not mine.
You are indeed correct, you do not understand. I did not state in any way you are not allowed to express your opinion. I suggest you read over my post again to see that I did not suggest this. My post was about someone attempting to shut down an opposing viewpoint they do not agree with. Expressing your opinion is one thing, preventing another from expressing his is another.
As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous".
Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice.
In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department.
Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.
If that was not your intention then, upon re-reading the thread, it seems you had no point in responding to any of my posts in the first place. I originally spoke that it could lead to an undesirable situation if one is given the power to shut down an opposing viewpoint. If you had nothing to say about that particular concern then I'm confused as to what your issue with my statement is, it would seem that you agree with what I have been saying all along.
Please explain to me how I said anything that disagrees with your last statement.
I made the perhaps incorrect assumption that your original reply to me way up there was somehow intended to actually reply to me, and therefore that your nonsense rhetoric about "shut down an opposing viewpoint" was something you thought actually applied to me.
If it didn't, then why did you reply to my comment in the first place?
I was replying to you, I was addressing the dangerous part, the nonsense rhetoric as you put it, that you had an issue with from the original poster. I was referring to the concept in general, it was never aimed directly at you. I don't know where you got that impression. You were the one responding as if you felt my thoughts on the matter applied directly to you when I, and another poster, have gone out of our way to say that was not the intention from the beginning.
There are many people who were and are wrong about certain things in life. Does that mean we should ignore their contributions in other areas out of spite?
I can enjoy Polanksi's films whilst not condoning his private activities. I can appreciate the remarkable skill of Wayne Carey on the football field whilst acknowledging he is probably a prick in his personal life. Humans are all too often both brilliant and flawed in equal measures.
Leaving that aside, did you read the article? Card isn't producing the movie. He sold the rights years ago. So unless you have a time machine, any lining you provide for his pockets is likely to be so indirect as to be inconsequential.
In danger of causing a "I think you're defending someone I dislike therefore I must dislike you" response, I think it would be good if you explain to the audience how exactly Orson Scott Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
Plus explain how my going to see the movie is not good for the numerous people who have worked on this movie who will get paid that may not share in Card's viewpoints.
If that's to be considered accurate then I don't quite see the homophobe boogey man people are trying to make him out to be. Seems to me he has a constantly changing attitude towards the matter that reflects the same education our society is currently going through.
Yet, reading through the text, I fail to see how Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
If you don’t consider OSC to be obviously anti-gay based on the Wikipedia sources, I’m not sure what would convince you.
Yes, he’s not personally driving a pickup truck around Utah with a gang looking to do some gay-bashing. But he obviously cares enough about the issue to write a lot of articles expressing clearly an anti-gay standpoint.
Examples from the Wikipedia article:
"The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."
“Card stated that he regarded any government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage a "mortal enemy" that he would act to destroy”
I don't believe I've denied the claim that he is against the homosexual lifestyle. That part is quite clear since he openly admits to that.
What I'm referring to is the claim that he is personally oppressing sexual minorities, which I don't see.
As for his wish to destroy a government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage, seems he's failing quite spectacularly at that. So how exactly is he this big homophobe boogey man that I must avoid at all costs, including his old books and current movies he has little to do with?
See, isn't this interesting? You provide the very answer I would have liked to see but somehow my reasonable post gets downvotes. Much the response I predicted.
Could you provide some links or sources to substantiate your claim that Orson Scott Card is bigoted against sexual minorities?
I'm a fan of the book, and I've been waiting to see this movie, but I confess that I don't know much about the author. Sources would be greatly appreciated.
As long as you include almost all Christian and Islamic movements and sects into that group you don't want us to give money to, I fully approve of this encouragement.
You'd think the success of the Harry Potter franchise would've gotten that project fast-tracked. Kids love the story of a poor downbeaten kid turning out to be The Chosen One.
84 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/11/sci_fi_poll/
Also, what about a Vorkosigan movie? Though I think it'd actually work pretty well as a TV show, with either hour-long episodes (one per book) or even with 2-4 shorter episodes per book.
As far as I know the only people who seem keen on the works of Mr Banks are the BBC (TV version of The Crow Road and a Radio 4 version of the Culture in The State of the Art).
I've been thinking about, hell, craving for a screen adaptation of the Culture novels, though instead of a movie, I think it should probably be a show. It'd have to be really well done, there are a lot of things to take into account and I'm afraid a lot of TV producers/writers might cheapen it. I'm thinking the likes of HBO might be able to pull off something like that.
I remember Iain M. Banks saying he was really worried about how TV writers might represent the ships, among other things, and I can totally get that. I can't find the source for this now, sorry, I thought it was in this http://nuwen.net/culture.html (amazing read by the way), but a quick scan didn't bring it up.
I think Consider Phlebas would be the one to go for. It has just about everything you could want for a fun action movie, but it's also smart. I recall Banks saying that he saw Star Wars and decided he could do better, and that's where CP came from, so it's a pretty natural fit. It's also quite a bit less serious than UoW and as a result I think it could stand being shaved down to movie length.
Pretty much every time I hear Coldplay's Paradise a trailer for Consider Phlebas plays in my mind.
Strange the BEST ending totally ruined by having an expectation of a awesome ending.
I likewise did not enjoy the book as an adult reader. I thought it was far to apologetic for ultraviolent, genocidal overreactions to be considered healthy reading for teenagers. The end of the book is not "genocide is bad". It's "isn't is a shame that poor Ender had to be tricked into committing genocide?" It's not that "governments shouldn't be given the sort of power capable of genocide", it's that "you can get away with it scott-free if your intentions were good."
Also, the whole "they hate me because I'm the best" wore really thin on me. It's just not a thing you see amongst real kids. In fact, being good at things is a good way to get other kids to like you. The kids didn't like Ender because he was a self-righteous prick, a spoil-sport punk with a Napoleon complex.
The dialog also sucked. Grade A shitty dialog. As a teenager, you might be intrigued by the idea of alternative slang (and that is probably why Buffy the Vampire Slayer was so popular, and by extension why Joss Whedon has such a following now, but can't seem to follow it up). But as an adult, it is really annoying.
Maybe in highschool. In elementary school, having any perceived deviation from "average" is a great way to get ridiculed by the majority of kids.
I'm not going to destroy my prose with legalistic gerrymandering just because you're too emotionally underdeveloped to enjoy a story after knowing details about it.
I reread and rewatch stuff all the time. That doesn't mean I want to know how the story ends the very first time I'm exposed to it.
I think you're too emotionally underdeveloped to realize I didn't ask you to destroy your prose with legalistic gerrymandering in the first place.
In fact, I still enjoy reading 'The Little Prince'. Silly me.
I say "tech industry" because many of us grew up loving sci-fi books more than the average kid. It's no fault of the authors, because of course to be appealing to young adults, the young adults have to be the saviors.
I like to view myself as more Chewbacca or R2-D2, since they are the only ones that seem to have their minds set right. Except for that one time R2 was memory-wiped, but even then...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheChosenOne
There is an interview where the autho, Card, admits this novel was just an attempt to cash in on the success of Ender's Game, in a way that his commercially unsuccessful (and pretty awful) sequels couldn't achieve.
I remember coming across the book as a teenager, having vaguely heard of it as 'good', and then staying up until 5 AM reading it.
I can think of no more than a couple other books that had this effect on me.
I had no idea this book had a similar effect on others.
I'm curious to know, what did you dislike about the book?
I could not sympathize with any of the issues in that book,nor stand for any of its ideas. I really wanted to stop reading halfway through, but forced myself to finish it to have a full picture of it.
Having said that, I can still see why someone who read it as a child would like it - but it does not make it good overall. Just because I've read and loved the first Harry Potter book when it came out,does not mean it's a brilliantly written story, because it's not - it's interesting,but it's not well written. And I feel like this is the same issue with this book.
One problem was that the studios always wanted to make Ender an older teenager and to give him a love interest.
Another was that the screenplay was always challenging because most of the book takes place inside Ender's head. Once he figured out that he could tell Ender's thought processes through Bean, it finally opened up the screenplay.
e: grammar
Watchmen is a book that's designed to be read over and over and your own pace, with more to notice each time through. I think everybody skims the Black Freighter stuff the first time. Comics are so short that a good re-reading experience is prettymuch intrinsic to separating a decent comic from an excellent one. That doesn't really translate to film, since all the details and layers of the story just make the movie feel too dense.
But as a whole, the movie is a mess even though there's nothing you can put your finger on as "see here? this is where they ruined Moore's vision!".
That's what I mean. The movie is a great and faithful attempt, but it still had a weak outcome. The book is unfilmable.
Card's book and the movie have nothing to do with his bigoted views, and should stand or fall on their own. In fact, the book (and possibly the movie), with its strong moral stance that resonates with teenagers, is likely to spread far more good by encouraging its readers to think about bullying, suffering of others, etc. than Card could possibly do harm, even if he wanted to, with its proceeds.
Historically, just about every famous writer has been bigoted about something; all of us are probably bigoted in some ways in which future generations will judge us. If the sanctimonious boycott calls leveled against Card succeeded in the past, we'd be left without many wonderful masterpieces that enrich our lives and deepen our understanding.
Oh right, it's the other way around. In America, a "vote" with a wallet means as much as a vote with a ballot.
Let's just go with the notion that Card is expressing his opinion on the matter. He has a right to this opinion, whether you agree with it or even if you consider it right or wrong.
But anytime someone is allowed to shut down an opposing viewpoint it will eventually lead to problems. Once someone has the ability to shut down one opposing viewpoint they disagree with, then they will have the power to shut down any viewpoint they disagree with. Possibly even shutting down a viewpoint they think is of the opposition when it's likely it's not, such as a misunderstanding or being inarticulate.
The difference being, a person actually has to commit actions against another human being to for a reaction need to take place. If someone says he doesn't like gays, fine, let the guy state his outdated rant and get on with your day. The moment the guy actually discriminates or commits an illegal act, then do something.
As for consequences, this movie is an excellent example. If you boycott the movie because of your disagreement with Card, then you are hurting far more people then you will ever hurt Card. Another example, the Chik-Fil-A boycott a while back. That hurt local businesses run by local owners who employ local people far more than the dude at the top that still got paid no matter how much chicken you refused to eat.
If anyone has the generic "you seem to defend what I don't like so I dislike you" reaction to this post, you are practically proving my point.
Deciding not to pay for a product is somehow dangerous? Expressing my opinion to other people and asking them to do the same is dangerous?
If Card is allowed to say hateful things, then I'm allowed to tell people about it and recommend that they not give him money. It is not logically possible for you to accept the former without also accepting the latter.
As for "somehow dangerous", please read the post again. Here, I'll quote from the very first sentence for you; "in this case I can't speak of it being dangerous".
Yes indeed, you are allowed to express your opinion and recommend that people avoid providing him with money if they disagree with what he has to say. But that's the consequences part; read the post again. The consequences being that with your boycott in an attempt to punish the target of your disagreement you are more likely hurting people who have nothing to do with the thing you are disagreeing with. Those are the consequences. If you feel fine with that, then power to you and by all means speak up. Just keep in mind that their might be hundreds of people with families to support that may be somewhat upset with your choice.
In the end I'm not even suggesting that Card should be saying the things he does. I disagree with him with my total being. But I am aware of how these things work, just read history. If you provide someone with the power to curtail speech that you do not like, that gives them the power to curtail all speech. It's why I disagree with hate speech laws. Who defines hate speech? Today hate speech may be defined as stating negative things about minorities, tomorrow it could be defined as saying anything negative against government or your local police department.
Sometimes when you make your short-term choices, you have to consider the long-term consequences.
But to answer your question, if he is attempting to prevent you from speaking out then, yes, it applies.
You seem lost, I'm not speaking of preventing you from stating your opinion. I'm speaking about your desire to prevent him from stating his.
Please explain to me how I said anything that disagrees with your last statement.
If it didn't, then why did you reply to my comment in the first place?
Paying for it is another matter.
I can enjoy Polanksi's films whilst not condoning his private activities. I can appreciate the remarkable skill of Wayne Carey on the football field whilst acknowledging he is probably a prick in his personal life. Humans are all too often both brilliant and flawed in equal measures.
Leaving that aside, did you read the article? Card isn't producing the movie. He sold the rights years ago. So unless you have a time machine, any lining you provide for his pockets is likely to be so indirect as to be inconsequential.
On the one hand, homophobia. I think OSC's got a rather strange and potentially dangerous set of political views.
But ... and this is a big but.
It's Ender's Game!
Plus explain how my going to see the movie is not good for the numerous people who have worked on this movie who will get paid that may not share in Card's viewpoints.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_scott_card#Views_about_h...
Yet, reading through the text, I fail to see how Card is personally oppressing sexual minorities.
Yes, he’s not personally driving a pickup truck around Utah with a gang looking to do some gay-bashing. But he obviously cares enough about the issue to write a lot of articles expressing clearly an anti-gay standpoint.
Examples from the Wikipedia article:
"The dark secret of homosexual society—the one that dares not speak its name—is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally."
“Card stated that he regarded any government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage a "mortal enemy" that he would act to destroy”
What I'm referring to is the claim that he is personally oppressing sexual minorities, which I don't see.
As for his wish to destroy a government that would attempt to recognize same-sex marriage, seems he's failing quite spectacularly at that. So how exactly is he this big homophobe boogey man that I must avoid at all costs, including his old books and current movies he has little to do with?
I'm a fan of the book, and I've been waiting to see this movie, but I confess that I don't know much about the author. Sources would be greatly appreciated.
Just as talented programmers can be horrible people, so too can talented authors.
http://www.hatrack.com/misc/Quotes_in_Context.shtml
http://www.hatrack.com/misc/Quotes_in_Context.shtml