I’d Probably Go See “Ender’s Game” anyway…

I’d Probably Go See “Ender’s Game” anyway… October 3, 2013

…but the attempt by the Gay Legion of Menacing Visigoths for Tolerance (most recently seen in my comboxes gloating over Tom Peters’ injury and wishing him death) to crush Orson Scott Card for daring to have an opinion at variance with the Legion only makes me want to see it twice, even if it sucks.  John C. Wright proposes a Chick Fil A moment on Card’s behalf.  It will be all the sweeter if the movie is actually good, which it promises to be, judging from the trailers.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Steve

    I cannot really express how important that book was to me growing up. I read it once a year from 6th grade until high school graduation. I tell parents that not giving that book to their boys constitutes child abuse.

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      My middle school advanced Lit. group read it aloud for a few years. The boys loved it, and I loved giving them a book that didn’t glorify thieving or assassination, etc. They were young enough to wrap their heads around the concept of forgiveness at the end, at least a little.

  • Paul F.

    And it stars Harrison Ford – who is like the manliest man on the face of the planet besides Sean Connery.

    • Dan F.

      This calls for a movie review by The Jerk….

  • Gail Finke

    The fact that people would consider boycotting a movie made from a book Card wrote decades ago and that has nothing to do with homosexuality or current political issues, simply because the author of the book the movie is based on is a conservative Mormon and thus believes homosexuality is a sin, frightens me. Like the call for the boycott of Barilla pasta over that Italian interview — in which the CEO said he was FOR gay marriage but against adoption by homosexuals, and then apologized for even saying that — it shows that there’s a very strong, unreasoning animus building against anyone, anywhere, ever saying anything that doesn’t toe the “orthodox” line. And apologies do not matter. People I know (vs. faceless online comments) told me that the apology didn’t matter, and neither did the fact that almost no company in the world includes same-sex parents in its advertising, so for all they know ALL companies agree with Barilla. What matters to them is that this man showed that he was “narrow-minded” and thus cannot be supported.

    I’ve never read the book but I know a lot of people who love it. I’ve read several of Card’s books and when he’s good he’s really good — when he’s bad he’s still better than most popular authors. He can really write. He is conservative and Mormon, and his Alvin Maker series (still not finished) is a great vehicle for understanding Mormonism. There’s no overt Mormonism in it but it’s Mormon in an anological sense, it gives you a kind of gut feeling for what they mean by being “Christian plus.”

    • Steve

      Ender’s parents are Mormon and Catholic. The sequel books in the Ender sage take place on a Catholic colony planet. I think Card has respect for the Catholic Church. One of the main driving characters in the Bean saga books is a Catholic nun who rescues the main character from the slums. I think Card’s writing shows respect for the Catholic faith.

    • kenofken

      Objections to Card’s bigotry have nothing to do with his being Mormon or hewing to it’s beliefs. They have to do with his promotion of active hatred and persecution of homosexuals. Card called for the arrest and imprisonment of gays for being gay. His defenders don’t like to talk much about that. He was writing in the context of the years in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the Supreme Court was wrestling with whether sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

      He didn’t merely argue for their retention, but for their use. Even better, he didn’t want the law applied uniformly. He just felt queers should be bundled off to prison just often enough to make an example of them and to intimidate others who were tempted to think private conduct is private:

      Anti-sodomy laws, Card wrote should “… be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”

      His defense of that seems to be well, it was in the spirit of the times, and anyway, it wasn’t meant to be heard by the general public.

      So saying Card is being picked on for being Christians is like saying David Duke was shunned for being white and and a family values guy.

      • rmichaelj

        For those who want to read the article and Card’s reasoning
        My reading is he wanted to keep them on the books but only enforced when violations were flagrant (in public).

        • kenofken

          The problem with that is that neither of the relevant Supreme Court cases or debate surrounding them was about public conduct. It was about whether the state should have the power to criminally prosecute consenting adults for sexual activity within the privacy of their own homes. Laws about public indecency ie sex in public were never at issue and were not changed by Lawrence v Texas.

          Card seems pretty clear that he meant society should have, and use the power of criminal law to regulate people’s private sex lives, and to do so in a way that expressly sends the message to gay people that they are not “acceptable or equal citizens.” Like all natural politicians and hate mongers, he tries to weasel out of his own words when they’re no longer in vogue or reach the “wrong ears.”

      • Gail Finke

        The fact remains that the book has nothing to do with that, and that people are calling for a boycott of a MOVIE based on the book. I didn’t say he is being picked on for being Christian (and I wouldn’t, as he is not Christian).

      • Gail Finke

        I didn’t say he was picked on for being Christian (and wouldn’t say so, as he is not Christian). I said it is dumb to picket a movie of a book because you don’t like the book’s author’s opinions of things that have nothing to do with either. Woody Allen molested one of his stepdaughters and married another — after a secret relationship begun when she was still a teen. Last I heard, nobody has boycotted him.

        And having read the article someone else helpfully supplied, I think your summation goes far beyond anything he said or advocated.

        • kenofken

          It’s not an abstract objection to seeing an author’s work because they are “ideologically impure.” For me, at least, the issue is whether or not I want to give my money to a guy who has preached an ideology of hate and who has leveraged his personal wealth and fame to advance that ideology. I’ve read varying accounts on whether Card gets a share of the take from each ticket (and other marketing), or whether it was a one-time deal for movie rights. Either way, he stands to make a hell of a lot of money for the project. None of it will be mine. That’s not some grand statement of solidarity with some boycott movement, just my own conscience telling me what I can or can’t be party to with my own miniscule dollar stake in the debate. For what even less it makes a diefference, I’m also not spending my money to see any of Woddy Allen’s new works, which are uninspired and unfunny as much as they are indeologically impure.