I saw this diatribe a few weeks ago and decided not to blog it. I read one of his novels, Pastwatch, and found it to be strangely reactionary (Christopher Columbus essentially had good intentions--other people are to blame for the excesses of colonialism). I couldn't even finish the Card article. Just awful.

You're a better man than me, Gunga Din.

And Pastwatch! That is the one novel of his I have read; I had almost forgotten. A friend of mine -- a real fan of Card's -- lent it to me and I remember I had a very difficult time telling her what I thought of it while still being tactful. What a weird novel! Didn't the people of the future finally decide to allow the Aztecs et al. to develop by themselves for a longer time, so that they were more equally matched with the bloodthirsty/greedy/technologically advanced Europeans when they finally met? Take out Columbus and it's a new ball game. Talk about your "great man" theory of history.

Yes, I am definitely feeling not in the least bit guilty for not reading any more of his novels, even though he seems to be so popular.

Julian Barnes is also creepy, and for similar reasons.

You would seriously base your "reading list" on a political article of an author? Or on a single other book by that author? If I didn't read anything by someone with different political/moral/etc views from myself I wouldn't have much to read. Confining yourself to such a narrow spectrum is sheer ignorance. The fact that you don't like Orson Scott Card as a person and that Enders Game is such a wildly popular book should make you want to read it even more(to possibly give a little more insight on our culture and society).

Also, why dismiss his article as "homophobic diatribe?" That is a cop out. I would not consider something that many many people would read and believe diatribe(you could take high and mighty route and proclaim that most people are stupid and not worthy of your intellect, therefore it is diatribe). Instead, why don't you refute it. Take the time to explain to me as a reader why I should not listen to what Orson Scott Card is saying. I'm am somewhat torn on the homosexual and family issue in this country and currently I have his article and your dismissal of it. Step outside of yourself and look at it from another perspective, someone unsure of beliefs looking for answers on a debated topic, any topic. On the one side I have a long thought out article that is rather convincing on some issues, on the other side I have the comment "I'm not going to read _____ because the author also wrote a stupid article that goes against my beliefs" with nothing more.
As an intellectual, which side would you choose?

What to say to this? Many possibilities...

Short answer: life is too brief to refute everything with which one does not agree. I long ago learnt to pick my battles. So, no, you will see no point-by-point rebuttals from me of what was essentially an in-house piece by Card, preaching to the choir.

And yes, the politics of an author are important. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum. Though I certainly read writers with whose politics I don't agree -- otherwise, as you say, I wouldn't have much to read. But in this case, Card's uncongenial politics are so central to the book I did read that I didn't enjoy it, especially as there seemed to be nothing else to redeem it. Unless he has undergone some conversion experience, presumably his other work would leave a similar aftertaste.

My problem is not that I can't find enough to read because of narrow politics. My problem is that there are so many books out there, that I'm not going to waste my time once bitten.

If you are seriously interested in exploring the question of gay rights, since you are already reading the "con" side, perhaps you might want to look at a blog like Alas, a Blog, which covers the issue in depth.

I realize this is an old debate, but still it troubles me, too. Should I not read Pound? Not take the opportunity to see a Picasso exhibit?

I do, of course.

On the other hand, for many years I read only science fiction by women, having learned that the chances of my being offended and insulted were thereby much reduced.

But -- I learned more from Samuel Delaney about my own racism and heterosexism than I have from most any other author.

So what to do ... ?

I think you have hit on the crucial question: whether or not there are enough other reasons to read a writer or view an artist. In Card's case I would say no.

(It's ironic that I am in the position I am in with this thread; I have had many conversations with more rigourously political friends and acquaintances trying to defend various books/films/etc. that they have dismissed out of hand. Ironic but good: I wrote an offhand post and have had to think about it and defend it.)

The last time I read anything by Card--it was his short story collection, Maps in a Mirror--I was struck by how articulate he was about prejudice against the overweight (a category including himself) and how equally unreflective he was about his own prejudices (when he wasn't personally affected).

I'm not a huge fan of Orson Scott Card, but I've read a few of his books and they were enjoyable enough to pass the time.

Isn't calling him a "homophobe" going a little too far? He's a devout Mormon whose entire argument against marriage and homosexuality is based on the _definition_ of marriage.

A lot of liberal people calling for homosexual marriage are the same people who want to separate religion and state. Marriage should have stayed out of the government in the first place (and should, in the future, stay out of the Constitution).

Mexico has the right idea. Legally, everyone must get a civil union. Religiously, people may have an additional service and get "married" through a church of their choice. Some couples are civilly united months before their religious service. The U.S. government should follow this example and separate marriage and civil unions.

Religion should dictate marriage. State should dictate civil union.

I don't at all think that calling someone homophobic who labels an entire segment of the population as "deviant" is going too far. In fact, he seems a textbook case.

As for marriage/civil unions: people can define their own marriages however they like, but the only definitions that hold true for everyone are the legal ones: marriage as a contractual arrangement. If on top of that you want to call it a sacrament, or a celebration of love, or a holy bond designed for the sole purposes of being fruitful and multiplying, or anything else, more power to you.

And Card's definition is more religious than legal. As soon as people began to desire a separate church and state, they should have differentiated holy unions and civil unions.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have both gay and straight couples get civil unions as an equal legal bond? Then, _if_ the couple is religious, they may "marry" (religiously) in their church or temple (if allowed by that division of their religion)--or if they are not religious, but want to celebrate, they may have a neutral ceremony.

My only issue with what you say is the heirarchy implied by having two groups of people: one married, and one who have "civil unions." I think we should have one name — marriage, because that is what it has historically been called, in English, when one enters into a contract with a life partner — and the gender or sexuality of the participants should not be an issue as far as the law is concerned. If certain religious groups want to deny religious ceremonies to specific groups, that is for them to deal with.

It's only two groups of people in the sense that we have religious people and people who are _not_ religious. Both groups would have civil unions, and any religious couple (same-sex and opposite-sex alike) may have their holy union if they so choose.

Anyways, I completely agree with you: the sexuality of the participants should _not_ be an issue as far as the law is concerned.