Talk:Orson Scott Card/Archive 1

Card themes

I've read the first 3 of the Ender's series, the first two of the Alvin series, and The Abyss, which I should ignore since it's a novelization of someone else's screenplay. Anyway, I'm detecting the following themes and I'd appreciate it if someone more versed in his work than I could comment. Maybe this is worth adding to the article, maybe not:

genocide &/or xenocide
assumption that another being's race is less valuable than one's own race, followed by recognized guilt and constant work towards redemption
children put in difficult situations
strife within a family; two siblings taking opposing paths
healing of oneself through concentration

Thanks, Koyaanis Qatsi

I think all of the themes you recognize are valid. One more (kind of an extension of your last observation) is Card's tendancy to have Child-Messiah figures in many of his stories. A good example of this is Ender in the Ender's Game series. —Frecklefoot 13:54, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Card seems to actually have a much broader tendency to examine all of his pivotal characters during their early childhood, and portray them as being somehow extraordinary, intelligent, or mature at that age. I think it is actually quite rare for him to begin a story with the main character as an adult. Examples of main characters first examined as young children:

Ender Wiggin (Ender series)
Bean Delphiki (Shadow series)
John Paul Wiggin (First Meetings)
Alvin Maker (Alvin series)
Patience (Wyrms)
Diko (Pastwatch)
Jason Worthing (Worthing Saga)
Beauty (Hart's Hope)
Itzak (Enchantment)
Ansset [and Mikal, through flashbacks] (Songmaster)
Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, and Leah (Women of Genesis series)
Stevie (Lost Boys)
Sugar (Unaccompanied Sonata)
Quentin Fears (Treasure Box)
Mack Street (Magic Street)

Examples of main characters first examined as young adults:

Lanik Mueller (Treason)
Nafai (Homecoming series)
Deaver and Monson (Folk of the Fringe)

Have I covered his entire body of work yet?

Disambiguating novels

What's the current means of disambiguating novels? (novel)? (book)? Currently _Saints_ and _Xenocide_ both need disambiguation. Koyaanis Qatsi

(novel) and if two novels have the same name then (YEAR novel). --mav

Thanks, mav, but with 12886 results on amazon.com just in books, I don't know how I'm supposed to find if any other book is titled simply Saints. Any ideas? Koyaanis Qatsi 05:35 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

I vote we apply the principle of economy and leave it as "Saints (novel)" until someone actually wants to write an article about a different novel called Saints.

--Paul A 06:00 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. And I didn't mean that previous thing to mav to sound snide, though it sounds that way to me now, reading it. Sorry, mav. :-/ Koyaanis Qatsi

Shadow novels

Is there any hidden reason to put "Shadow of Ender series" as a separate list, and far away from its other storyline, the "ender series"? I believe they're the same, and at least should follow each other if someone insist the separation. --grin 17:18, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Ender series was written first and deals with the war against the Buggers and then the moral and ethical implications of dealing with two other alien races encountered. Bean's series starts with a novel roughly paralleling the first Ender novel, but from Bean's point of view. The rest of the Shadow novels deal with the highly politicized situation on Earth when Bean and the others return, and covers a lot of military strategy in the ensuing power play. Ender misses all of that struggle going from planet to planet before answering a call on the planet where the piggies are.

The four Ender books are marketed on the paperback as an "Ender quartet" and the Shadow books are marketed as part of the "Shadow series." So Card at least thinks of them as separate series, or allows his publisher to market them as such. But yes, they probably should be listed closer together. Koyaanis Qatsi 08:06, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Politics

Author states that "Card is equally active as a political writer and speaker", but clearly that has far from equal prominence here. In particular, would anyone object to for starters, some examination of his self-characterisation as a Democrat (seemingly in essence solely on Civil Rights grounds, which surely even most GOPers would not accept to be distinguishing on policy grounds), his stance on gay rights, and global warming? Alai 04:03 6 Dec 2004

No, Card is not as well known as a political writer and speaker (I, in fact, had never heard of him acting in these roles until I read this article). Though it can be mentioned, he is not well-known for it.

It would be interesting to see a discussion of why and how he is a Democrat, especially since he is LDS. Members of the LDS Church are known for being very conservative and, thus, are usually Republicans. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:55, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

He says he's a democrat. Being LDS certainly doesn't automatically make him a republican. A case example is Senate minority leader Harry Reid. Card also claims to be a moderate and his political writing suggest to me that that is the case. Perhaps simple changing the sentence to take out the "equally". --SDG 18:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

He says he's a Democrat, but is Card necessarily the most impartial or illuminating source on Card? I don't doubt it's true in some technical sense, such as his voter registration, the question is whether it's in any sense a useful summary of his politics. If we say 'self-identifying' or some such formula, that's covered. Alai 03:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL, I never considered somebody other than Card might be more of an authority on Card. Perhaps you are right though. I sent an e-mail via his website, hopefully I will get an answer. His personal assistant has answered others questions for me in the past. This has really gotten me interested in why he considers himself a democrat. --SDG 06:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that since he is LDS, he should be or is automatically Republican. But, statiscally, most are Republican. That's all. :-)

Removing the word "equally" would be a good move, but it'd also be interesting to read about his stance on various political topics. — Frecklefoot | Talk 19:57, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well that would take a bit of work. :) From what I've read (which is a lot) he is anti-Orin Hatch. :) He is conservative when it comes to issues of Homosexuality, Abortion, and the War on Terror. I think he is more liberal when it comes to social and corporate reform though. I tend to agree with a lot of his views and I'm a moderate republican, so I tend to view him more as a moderate than a democrat. Its pretty clear on which issues he falls to the right of, but less clear on which he falls to the left. I'll try sending him an e-mail and see if he replies. In the mean time I'll edit the "equally" sentence. --SDG 01:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that last, it certainly improves the internal consistency. I propose we not wait for a reply from Card's staff -- my own inbox is still agog for a clarification of his denominational fast-feet in his "Passion of the Christ" article. This is, after all, an encylopaedia article, not an approved biography. I don't mean to slight Card's motivations for describing himself thusly; I just don't know what they are. I'd consider myself, for example, both the most knowledgable and most biased source on me...

I'm not familiar with his opposition to Orrin Hatch; the only reference I've seen is a War Watch in which he praises Hatch for compromising with Democrats, and taking heat for it in Utah. (Same article characterises Zell Miller as a "centrist" and "loyal" "Democrat, period", if this helps us calibrate his use of the affiliation.)

Here's a couple of statements he's made on the matter: "I'm a Democrat voting for Bush, even though on economic issues, from taxes to government regulation, I'm not happy with the Republican positions." (http://slate.msn.com/id/2107890/) His more customary argument seems to be along the following lines: http://www.hatrack.com/osc/reviews/everything/2003-04-07.shtml (Had some trouble finding this one, due to it hiding... in a review column, on his fiction website. Bonus segment on his 'Global Warming isn't a mathematical certainty, therefore we should do nothing' take on energy/enviromental policy.) Alai 04:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Any homosexual man who can persuade a woman to take him as her husband can avail himself of all the rights of husbandhood under the law. [...] So it is a flat lie to say that homosexuals are deprived of any civil right pertaining to marriage. To get those civil rights, all homosexuals have to do is find someone of the opposite sex willing to join them in marriage." (writing in the Rhinoceros Times)"

Wish I hadn't bought any of his books now, bigot.

Oh, excellent. Name-calling. That's productive. Card is definitely not known for understating his political opinions, but I wouldn't be so quick to attack his character without actually getting to know the guy.

Actually, I'm wondering if that quote about gay marriage really belongs on the front page of an article about a person who is not best-known for his political diatribes. Might it be needlessly inflammatory? Does it need more context?

His diatribes get pretty heavy push on his web-sites (which the article references, and which interlink each other, and indeed spill over in places), so if he's not well-known for them, it's not through the want of trying. I hadn't heard he was going to be writing "Ultimate Iron Man" until it was added to this web page, but when I did a quick google: top hit was a web-board discussion which quickly turned into a flame-fest as to how he'd be handling the gay character therein, etc. (Could have been worse, though, someone might have quoted the essay where he argues in favour of homosexuality being criminalised.) As this article necessarily only has one page, I'm not sure where else to put it. 'Context', perhaps; I suggested some time ago a longer discussion of his politics. If you can think of a context that makes the above quote not sound inflammatory, suggest away... Alai 13:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, same guy from above. How do I get a username, by the way? I'm new to this whole Wiki thing :) Anyway, I'm kind of surprised to hear you refer to an article in which he advocates the criminalization of homosexuality ... I thought I'd read virtually all of his stuff, and I never got THAT impression. Regardless, yes, he does have some inflammatory views. So do most writers. I'm just pointing out that there is a separate page for quotes, and though I'm new to this and may not get how all of it works, it might be more appropriate to stick his inflammatory statements in there. I dunno, it's just, reading the "wish I hadn't bought any of his books now" reaction above makes me suspect that the selection of that particular quote was politically motivated to stir people up against Card ("hey, did you HEAR the awful thing he SAID the other day?" "No, DO TELL!"), rather than being aimed at documenting the man's life and work, which I thought was the purpose of this encyclopedia.

You know, long before he wrote the above quote, people used to pass around a quote from The Ships of Earth in which Zdorab (the gay character) describes a theory that Shedemei used to teach as a biology professor, explaining homosexuality as a safeguard against the propogation of genetic abnormalities. Never mind that the book treated this theory as false, and Shedemei rescinded it after getting to know Zdorab. Never mind that the overall purpose of that scene was to show Shedemei overcoming her prejudice against homosexuals. The out-of-context quote (which was sometimes distributed at his signings by protestors) was enough to rile people up against him.

And you wonder why he has an uncomfortable relationship with the gay rights movement? He didn't have to be anti-gay-rights to begin with. All he had to be was a Mormon writing about the subject of homosexuality, and he was labeled an enemy and treated as such. Now, I suspect that he's just acting out the role that was handed to him.

So that's the kind of context I'm talking about. A single quote doesn't define a person, and this particular one, on its own, paints him to be a raving homophobe, when his situation is a lot more complex.

Hi, same guy. :) I've left you (well, your IP) a generic welcome message, hope that's of some use. (But basically, you should have a "log in" option at the top of your browser window.) Yes, we should describe his life and work, But part of his 'work' is clearly to be a political columnist. If anything, there's too little in this article on that, not too much, in my judgement. It's not like this was something he said in an off-the-cuff rant at an sf con, this was a lengthy article on that particular topic. I've seen numerous Card quotes protesting/laughing off accusations of "homophobia", and characterising himself as a moderate on the issue, but that quote is not exactly atypical of his public stance on such subjects. If anything, 'gay people ought not to be allowed to get married' is one of his moderate positions, in terms of political norms. Alai 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe what we need is some history of his stated political positions, how they have changed over time and how they relate to his personal experience. Note, for example, that his obsession with the need for human beings to reproduce started to pop up in the Shadow series right after he lost two of his own children (one to a premature birth, and the other to a longstanding disability probably stemming from prenatal trauma) and he and his wife, as a result, were no longer able to have kids. Naturally, connections like that are more speculative than anything, but some kind of analysis along those lines might be more enlightening than "check out what this jerk said about gay people" :) To what degree are we allowed to include that sort of analysis? Is there a way to write an article that involves speculation and mark it as such?

Hrm. I'd be uncomfortable with that (on several levels, in fact). It's certainly very problematic given Wikipedia:No original research. Of course, you're free to write such an essay in another forum, and then demonstrate you're a notable enough critic to be be quoted on the matter here... Alai 21:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Same Guy is now named "Rafe" :) And I figured that was an impossibility, but I had to ask. If there's anything I think Wikipedia is meant to stand for, it's intellectual rigor and honesty. While I like my opinions, note that I'm keeping them here, rather than in the article.

Anyway, so now Alison has added Card to a category of "publically homophobic people". Such a category exists? Wikipedia actually classifies people using derogatory terms coined by their opposition? I mean, come on, seriously, people, let's keep the debates and the name-calling to the BBSes and use this place for facts and research.

Or is this "category" thing simply an attempt at vandalism? I still haven't quite picked up the way the inner workings of this place go yet. —Rafe

Welcome, Rafe, sure you'll fit right in here. The subtler way to do that is to find someone 'quotable', whose opinion just happens to co-incide with one's own. :)

Perhaps 'heavy POV' would be the polite (or euphemistic) term for it. She's just created the category herself, added a bunch of people to it, having earlier added her user page to 'Category:LGBT rights activists'. OK, so very heavy POV. Incoming edit war with a side of flames, I don't doubt. Oh dear. Alai 00:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You know, with the number of crazed activists populating and controlling Ye Olde Internet, I'm actually surprised that Wikipedia ends up as straightforward, moderate, and professional as it does. I mean, you'd think it would constantly swing back and forth as different partisan cranks got different kinds of bugs up their butts. But so far, just about everything I've found here has been legit ... weird. — Rafe

Perhaps you just haven't found the 'right' page yet -- I can think of a few remarkably like that. But yes, it's amazing there's as much good quality material here as there is. Alai 01:15, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Politics Redux

All right, I've been watching this page for a while now. So far, people have added two recent inflammatory quotes, added Card to a category of "public homophobes", and insulted him personally in the discussion thread above. I am getting the impression that much of this is motivated, not by scholarly interest, but by political agendas. Card is not yet notable on a large scale for his politics, but this encyclopedia is being used, among other means, to "get the word out" about Card's opinions, and encourage people not to buy his books. His official website gets hit once every couple of weeks by a new person saying, "I used to buy Card's books, but then someone told me he was a bigot, so I stopped, and so should YOU!" or something along those lines. These recent additions to the article are just part of the campaign. I personally think that Wikipedia should not be used as a political tool, or as a means of attacking a public figure, however subtly. — Rafe

Of course it shouldn't. I saw you moved the quotes. I'm wondering why they're in the article at all. Don't we have a Wikiquote article for Card? Can't we just move the—mostly unrelated—quotes there? Card is known for his fiction writing, not for his political views, even if he does some writing about them. Move them to wikiquote and be done with it, I say. — Frecklefoot | Talk 22:10, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would defend the "public homophobe" tag as a model of NPOV, but why are quotes from his publically available essays, from his own website, that this very article already links to, "inflammatory" content about him? (As opposed to inflammatory statements by him, which were you to argue, I wouldn't necessarily dispute.) Isn't he in effect paying his own money to increase awareness of these very political views? (How successfully, I can't reliably judge.) I don't think it's necessarily having a political agenda, to attempt to describe Card's "political agenda" (if such a description is indeed accurate and neutral -- incidentally, I don't think the unqualified description "Democrat" rises to that level). I'll grant you that if he weren't a novelist, there wouldn't be a WP article on him as a conservative blogger and newspaper columnist, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect an article would ignore the use he makes of his notability from fiction. Alai 02:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Card is a homophobe (someone who is afraid of homosexuals), he just doesn't like their political agenda. I think the article should include information about his politic views, since he himself does so much with it. But I don't think the article should be overly tilted on the political stuff, because Card is known mostly for his fiction writing. As for the quotes, those should go in Wikiquote because they're political, a minor sideline for Card. Just MHO... — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:17, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'd move them myself, but I'm a n00b, and I'm not sure how :) Someone else want to give it a shot? I think moving them to Wikiquote is probably the best balance between leaving them in for the sake of maintaining a complete record of the man's impression on the world, while keeping the inflammatory political stuff independent from his primary field of work. Rafe 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the issue's "is he a homophobe?" (though you're using it in homophobia sense #2, as of course Card himself has, whereas I'm sure most users of the term would have more in mind the first sense). The question is really, what weight to give to his political views in general in the article? Personally I'd say it's "under-tilted" at present, not overly so, though I'm not personally attached to the quotes per se. (I'm not sure what the rule of thumb on WP vs WQ is... None of the quotes, fictional or political, are integrated with the text of the article, should they all be moved thusly?) I don't think it's sustainable to argue the two should be 'independent'; firstly, he doesn't exactly keep them very separate himself, and secondly, there's only going to be one article on him. Alai 12:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I find the quotes in the article oddly placed. However I have noticed the Isaac Asimov article also has a list of quotes on the page, so perhaps its a wikipedia custom. The quotes which represent Card's actual views have more meaning to me than the quotes of Card's charachters. I think the Charachter quotes should go to the article of the book from which the quote came from since that's where they are in context. Any of Card's own quotes should stay on the Orson Scott Card Article however I would prefer it if it were in a relevant section of the article instead of lumping them all together. SDG 18:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking through more SF Author articles, I am hardpressed to find any articles besides Cards and Asimov to have a quote section. Its possible they are, but Having perused the list for names I know I couldn't find any other examples. Also The Asimov quotes are all quotes by Asimov, not his charachters. I think this strengthens my postion that quotes by Card's charachters belong elsewhere. SDG 19:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ender's Game movie and Alvin's World computer game

I notice there is no mention of the Ender's Game Movie on the front page. Also there is a computer game called Alvin's World in production. I was thinking about adding them both, but wonder if there is a good reason not to. From what I understand Card has a lot to do with both of them.SDG

I'd say go ahead and add it. Koyaanis Qatsi 22:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

The long set of quotes shoud go into Wikiquotes, with only a couple remaining here. -Willmcw 22:31, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

themes + politics

I think there must be an addition to the main page describing themes in his work/where Card is coming from. The following themes/influences in Card's fiction are too glaring to ignore and still do a thorough and honest job of describing him and his work:

-LDS (many of his works include lds characters or are influenced by lds beleifs, and card himself is lds e.g., the ghost story and the homecoming series, the Alvin Maker series)

-Bildungsroman (others mentioned this: this is a literary term that describes stories that include how the character grows up and develops to the crux of the story, so this includes young characters e.g., Ender,Enchantment, Bean, Alvin Maker, the worthing saga)

-homosexuality (many gay characters or adult characters in loveless marriages which they engage in only to have kids: Songmaster, Ender, Zdorab.

e.g.,

Even though his body had had no particular joy from Shedemei’s (and certainly hers had finally become exhausted from the effort to please his), yet there was joy in it on another level. Because the gift had been given. Sheer friction and stimulation of nerves had won in the end, sparking the reflex that deposited a million hopeful half-humans-to-be into the matrix that would keep them alive for the day or two of their race toward the other half, the all-mother, the Infinite Egg. What did they care whether Zdorab had lusted after Shedemei or merely acted out of duty while desperately trying to fantasize another lover of a reproductively irrelevant sex? Their life was lived on another plane…Who is to say that mine is not the better fatherhood, because I acted out of pure love, and not of some inborn instinct that captured me. Indeed, I acted against my instinct. There’s something in that. A hero of copulation, a real cocksman, if the others only knew (The Ships of Earth 225)

 Also several male characters are portrayed as being incredibly beautiful, e.g.

" Inside the smithy Alvin lay curled on the ground, facing toward the forge, away from her. He was breathing heavily, raggedly. Asleep? No. He was naked; it took a moment to realize that his clothing must have burned off him in the forge…His skin was shockingly pale and smooth. Earlier today he had been callused, with here and there a scar from some spark or searing burn, the normal accidents of life beside a fire. Now, though, his skin was as unmarked as a baby’s, and she could not help herself; she stepped into the smithy, knelt beside him, and gently brushed her hand along his back, from his shoulder down to the narrow place above the hip. His skin was so soft it made her own hands feel coarse to her, as if she marred him just by touching him (Prentice Alvin, 1989: 306)"

And we might include something about Card's views on homosexuality here, too.

-Edge literatures (Card's own analysis, from the afterword of CotM:

"Perhaps that is why the Stranger and the Other are so important in all my writings (though never at first by plan), even as my stories also affirm the importance of the Member and the Familiar…Am I not, with my own inner contradictions between Inside and Outside, Member and Stranger, a model of the people who live in this age? "

So I suggest a combined "Themes/Influences" section that would mention those major literary themes and why he might keep returning to them.

I don't know why that one line in this post keeps showing up in a grey box with dashes aroud it and I can't fix it because I'm not a computer guy.

Postulating about why he keeps returning to them is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia. That starts becoming original research, so has no place here. Linking his books together by drawing on common themesis acceptable though. I did such when editing the wyrms article. SDG 15:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)