?

Log in

No account? Create an account

in a web of glass, pinned to the edges of vision

Hypothesis (as originally advanced by one St.Rev), and I have to concur:

I'd forgotten how often we saw Magritte

mucha mosaic

Hypothesis (as originally advanced by one St.Rev), and I have to concur:

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
mucha mosaic
For those who don't keep up with such nonsense, Orson Scott Card just can't shut the fuck up about homosexuality. The link preceding is a long diatribe from him about the Horrors of Homosexual Marriage.
The problem I have is not that he has an opinion that differs from mine: it's that he cannot make any effort to understand anybody else's opinion- and cannot agree to disagree. Here's an example of this blunt incomprehension:
homosexual "marriage" is an act of intolerance. It is an attempt to eliminate any special preference for marriage in society -- to erase the protected status of marriage in the constant balancing act between civilization and individual reproduction.

So if my friends insist on calling what they do "marriage," they are not turning their relationship into what my wife and I have created, because no court has the power to change what their relationship actually is.

Instead they are attempting to strike a death blow against the well-earned protected status of our, and every other, real marriage.

They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all. They won't be married. They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes.


So here's St.Rev's hypothesis: Orson Scott Card may have been molested, as a boy, by a male relative. I'll expand a bit. In my view, this would also serve to explain the severe dichotomy between the stuff that he's written which is more kid-focused (Ender's Game, f'rinstance), and the sharp unflinching cruelty of the less child-centric universe he's created since. Children, in OSC stories, are subjected to terrible occurances, which wind up with them staggering through their adult lives trying to make sense of a universe which could let such things happen to children.

Have a look at the essay: you can see a distinct pattern of references that refer, time and again, to the innocence of a child getting corrupted by (insert authority figure here). The one that stuck in my throat worst was:
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.
...What?

Whether my hypothesis holds water (and I'm not convinced of my own correctness) or not, the article is an interesting read... the attempts to apply a logical mode of expression to an irrational behavior based on something other than empirical evidence are an impressive thing.

Impressive in that 'the face of the glacier overbalanced and crashed into the ocean' sort of way.
  • I had come to the same conclusion/hypothesis myself, having read at least chunks of the Card rant in question (I had to skim; it was both icky and lacking in content), and the second paragraph/section you quote also caught my eye. Smells like someone's got some unresolved child abuse issues to me. (Add in the distinct lack of normal, functional sexual relationships in many of his books.)

    The only thing I can say in his defense there is that, if he was abused, he at least has some cracked justification for his "homosexuals=abusers" bullshit. I've heard the same line of bull from people with far less excuse for it (after all, there are just as many pedophiles who attack the opposite gender, if not more of them) (you fucktards).

    That's not any sort of excuse for spewing vitriol, or for not getting some fucking therapy. Plenty of abused children grew up to be sane, rational, non-hate-spewing adults of various sexual tastes.

  • Man, that's just depressing.
  • Card annoys. As does Anne McCaffrey, for much the same reason.

    Someday I'm going to have something relevant to say when I comment to people. Apparently today is not that day.
  • Wow. You know, I try to steer clear when Card opens his mouth on Mormonism or his Mormon beliefs, because generally it's not something I want to sully my idea of him as a *writer*. After reading this essay, I don't think my idea of him as a *writer* has changed any. I still thing he's one of the greatest modern authors, and most overlooked due to his chosen religion.

    But you know what? I think my idea of him as a *person* just took a horrendous nosedive. any schoolchild who questions the legitimacy of homosexual marriage will be expelled for "hate speech." Yes, much like anyone who questions the rights of different skin tones to do certain things will have the same thing happen. Because, you know, I think that's what it is. It's like he's missing the entire point of why it's being taken to courts - the fact that most places, regardless of the validity of a marriage, refuse to honor them. They're doing their job - to ensure that law is enforced.

    Well. I suppose I don't agree with what he's saying. But I will defend unto death his right to say it, as is my general belief.
  • I really enjoyed Card's earlier work, and in particular the way his villains would be well-realized, intelligent people, acting in the way they felt was best, but due to circumstances or some misunderstanding, they would end up being on the wrong side.

    Much like Card himself.

    However, I haven't read anything of his since the first couple of Homecoming novels, which struck me as being just, well, bad. Poorly written (relatively speaking), poorly thought-out. And I find that I no longer have any inclination to do so, even to read the newer Alvin Maker novels.
    • I lost interest in him about when the Alvin Maker stuff came out. They struck me as boring and badly written.

      I just want to remind people that abuse doesn't always lead to intolerance. I think it should be pretty clear by now that I am quite fond of Lesbians, thank you very much. Although I can't personally tolerate psychiatry because of my experiences, I periodically refer friends who need professional help to one.
  • He's actually written a novel with sexual abuse as one of its primary themes-- 'The Lost Boys'(ghost story + molesting serial killer + mormonism = fun?)

    Card's narrowness is really tragic, and I think it's gotten worse with age-- take a look at 'Treason', for instance, in which our protagonist actually switches sexual parts during the course of the book, that sort of thing. My impression is that he's become more extreme in his religion beliefs since the days when he wrote Ender's Game(etc). Sort of an inverse Piers Anthony, trend wise. (can we have /more/ with the Lolita figures, Piers? Please?)

    Sad, sad sad.
  • Don't forget his novel Songmaster, which contains a disturbing homosexual relationship between an adult and a boy, that is clearly molestation but nonetheless emotionally confused.
  • Ender's Game is really his only work that I enjoyed, the rest I tried reading just left me 'eh'.
    While most everyone has already stated pretty much what's on my mind (btw, did you ask him what he thinks of Mormanism not being considered part of Christianity?), one thing no one has brought up is this:
    A little dialogue from Lewis Carroll
    So, Mr. Issues is using a child molester to justify himself? How...interesting.
    • I'm of two minds here:

      ...okay, calling Lewis Carroll a child molester is perhaps going a bit past accurate. Fetishizer of children, unquestionably, but molestation requires actual physical contact-- which I've never seen documentation to support (and as I have something of a fancy for Victorian culture in general, I have tried to solidly pin this one down). At the same time, the Victorian era's perceptions of child abuse differed vastly from our own: as in, we have a concept of child abuse at all. There wasn't language to discuss it, so it's possible that it went on and just was not spoken of, in the classic Victorian tradition of dealing with things that weren't Proper.

      The obvious comment about Card's use of Carroll for justification, though, is: 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, 'it means precisely what I say it means.'
  • Apparently he's been like this for some time.
    2000 Interview with Donna Minkowitz
  • Well...

    I agree 100% with you that Card is a bigoted braindead religibot who desperately needs to be shat on from a great height by the Flying Reality Cow. My life is too short and too damned much fun to spend reading his books.

    However, I'm just a wee tad reluctant to automatically chalk his attitude down to abuse, when mere religious indoctrination is a more than sufficient explanation. Occam's Razor, and all that.

    I know how frustrating I find it when Christians automatically assume that my atheism was "caused by" my holding a grudge against, or having been abused by, an individual Christian.
    • Indeed: I'm not trying to automatically chalk it down as due to abuse. It's an hypothesis: I'm testing it. :)

      BTW: if you use anything Trillian talks to from workplace, I'm turnermorgan22 on AIM, now.
  • Card's issues

    That is intreresting.

    I noticed from his books that he has issues with mothers and sons, and the loss of innocents, but I had never connected it with his homophobia. But now that you mention it his attitude toward mothers could be because he feels betrayed by his mother's falure to protect him. In his books mothers willing give their sons over to men who do things to them.

    You're probably right.
Powered by LiveJournal.com