Monday, August 11, 2008

A Gift for Oppression

This is targeted at the gifted writer Orson Scott Card, and this little diddy.

First, let me get this out of the way, Enders Game is a Fantastic book.

That being said, sadly his gift for writing stories involving oppression seems to have bled into his philosophy on life. He is actually arguing that we should start a revolution to stop the marriage of gay people. I'm not gay, but I have a thing for anti-oppression, it runs part and parcel with being an atheist. The idea that someone else can tell you how to think is a horrifying idea, and legislating it is a good way to cause nothing but infighting. The might of a government is it's ability to give everyone a voice, telling people they aren't people because of who they sleep with isn't a far stretch from telling people that have no faith in someone's god makes them less human.

The Blue Pill:
Luckily O.S.C.'s status as a sci-fi writer is happily marginalized by a majority of the public. His way of thinking is likely to go just about the same way. This should be considered good by most of us (even me, thou I really do like his books).

The Red Pill:
Propositions like this are horribly dangerous, calling the public to violence over who marries who is patently upsurd. It's the modern day equivalent of calling for inquisitions and witch hunts because you don't agree with a small group. What's more it's no more than a transparent attempt to marginalize a group smaller than yourself in an attempt to garner a political edge. The worst part of this proposition is that it plays into reconstructionist dogma, a group even O.S.C. would probably think twice about jumping into bed with (some quick background information on the movement), and one that would do some fantastic damage to this country and planet given the opportunity.

3 comments:

worksintheory said...

WOOOO.

worksintheory said...

Regardless of the quality of some of his books, OSC has always been a crazy mormon fundie.

He is also really fucking old.

Garrett said...

My problem isn't that he's consistent, it's that he's presenting fundamentally flawed arguments. Someone as capable of capturing the concept of oppression in fiction should be able to recognize it in real life (art mirrors life after all). It may be that he actually sympathizes with the oppressors in his book not the protagonists, which would go a long way to understand the abuse they receive throughout the stories, but that's not the way the stories come across so I'm not convinced that's the problem. It seems more he doesn't recognize that his desires are in fact oppressive because he doesn't consider the targets of his malice as people to begin with.